In Praise of Ephemera: A Picture Postcard from Vilna Reveals its Secrets More than One Hundred Years after its Original Publication

In Praise of Ephemera: A Picture Postcard from Vilna Reveals its Secrets More than One Hundred Years after its Original Publication*

by Shnayer Leiman

I belong to a small group of inveterate collectors of Jewish ephemera. We collect artifacts that many others consider of little or no significance, such as postage stamps; coins and medallions; old posters, broadsides, and newspaper clippings; outdated New Years cards; wine-stained Passover Haggadot; Jewish ornaments, objects (e.g., Chanukkah dreidels) and artwork of a previous generation; photographs and postcards; and the like. The items we collect – all of Jewish interest – take up much space in our homes; they can also be costly at times. Often, we end up paying much more for an item than it is really worth, especially if it completes a set. Collectors of ephemera suffer from a disease that has no known remedy. The only respite we have from the disease is when we write scholarly essays about what we have collected, for – as I know from experience – it is not possible to write scholarly essays and actively collect ephemera at the same time.

The Picture Postcard.

Several years ago, I acquired the following postcard. It measures 5½ inches by 3½ inches, a standard size for its time. It is a mint copy, meaning that no message was penned on its back and it was never mailed. Thus, I cannot date the postcard by a recorded date or postmark on its reverse side (but see below). We present the obverse and the reverse of the postcard for the benefit of the reader:

Obverse. The obverse presents a black and white photograph, also standard for its time. It features a tombstone with a Hebrew inscription; a mausoleum behind the tombstone, with a brief Hebrew inscription; and what appears to be a cemetery attendant, with his hand atop the tombstone. Most important, it contains a German heading under the photograph, which reads in translation: “From the Eastern Front of the Theater of War, Wilna, An Old Jewish Tombstone [with Inscription].”

Reverse. The reverse prints the name of the publishing company that produced the postcard: “The Brothers Hochland in Koenigsberg, Prussia.”

Historical Context.

In terms of historical context, the information provided by the postcard (a German heading; Vilna is defined as the eastern front of the theater of war; the postcard was produced in Koenigsberg) can lead to only one conclusion, namely that the postcard was produced on behalf of the German troops that had occupied, and dominated, Vilna during World War I. German troops occupied Vilna on September 18, 1915 and remained in Vilna until the collapse of the Kaiser’s army on the western front, which forced the withdrawal of all German troops in foreign countries at the very end of 1918. Thus, our photograph was taken, and the postcard was produced, during the period just described. Its Sitz im Leben was the need for soldiers to send brief messages back home in an approved format. The ancient sites of the occupied city made for an attractive postcard. (This may have been especially true for Jewish soldiers serving in the German army.)

Due to a wonderful coincidence, a distinguished scholar of Yiddish and a dear colleague, Professor Dovid Katz, recently published a copy of the very same postcard we publish here.[1] Unlike my copy, his copy includes on the reverse side a dated message penned by the German soldier who mailed it, as well as a dated postmark. The message was written on December 3, 1917 and postmarked the next day, on December 4. Thus, we can narrow the timeline somewhat, and suggest that the postcard was almost certainly produced circa 1916 or 1917. The Old Jewish Cemetery.

The old Jewish cemetery was the first Jewish cemetery established in Vilna. According to Vilna Jewish tradition, it was founded in 1487. Modern scholars, based on extant documentary evidence, date the founding of the cemetery to 1593, but admit that an earlier date cannot be ruled out. The cemetery, still standing today (but denuded of its tombstones), lies just north of the center of the city of Vilna, across the Neris River, in the section of Vilna called Shnipishkes (Yiddish: Shnipishok). It is across the river from, and just opposite, one of Vilna’s most significant landmarks, Castle Hill with its Gediminas Tower. The cemetery was in use from the year it was founded until 1831, when it was officially closed by the municipal authorities. Although burials no longer were possible in the old Jewish cemetery, it became a pilgrimage site, and thousands of Jews visited annually the graves of the righteous heroes and rabbis buried there, especially the graves of the Ger Zedek (Avraham ben Avraham, also known as Graf Potocki, d. 1749), the Gaon of Vilna (R. Eliyahu ben R. Shlomo, d. 1797), and the Hayye Adam (R. Avraham Danzig, d. 1820). Such visits still took place even after World War II.

The cemetery, more or less rectangular in shape, was spread over a narrow portion of a sloped hill, the bottom of the hill almost bordering on the Neris River. The postcard captures the oldest mausoleum and rabbinic grave in the old Jewish cemetery, exactly at the spot where the bottom of the hill almost borders on the Neris River. It was an especially scenic, and historically significant, site in the old Jewish cemetery, and it is no accident that the photographer chose this site for the postcard.

The Tombstone and its Hebrew Inscription.

The tombstone is that of R. Menahem Manes Chajes (1560-1636). He was among the earliest Chief Rabbis of Vilna. Indeed, his grave was the oldest extant dated grave in the Jewish cemetery, when Jewish historians first began to record its epitaphs in the nineteenth century. R. Menahem Manes’ father, R. Yitzchok Chajes (d. 1615), was a prolific author who served as Chief Rabbi of Prague. Like his father, R. Menahem Manes published several rabbinic works in his lifetime, and some of R. Menahem Manes’ unpublished writings are still extant in the Bodleian Library at Oxford University. His epitaph reads:[2]

The Mausoleum and its Hebrew Inscription.

In the old Jewish cemetery, many of the more famous rabbis were buried in mausoleums. All rabbis buried in mausoleums were buried underground. The mausoleum itself served as an honorific place of prayer that a visitor could enter and then pray at the grave of the rabbi of his choice. All tombstones were placed outside the mausoleum, and were affixed to its outside wall, directly opposite the body of the deceased rabbi named on the tombstone (but buried inside the mausoleum). Often, the names of famous rabbis were painted on the outside wall of the mausoleum (much like street signs) identifying who was buried in it. The mausoleums sometimes contained the graves of several famous rabbis. R. Menahem Manes Chajes was buried in the mausoleum that can be seen behind his tombstone. A famous rabbi buried in the same mausoleum was R. Moshe on the Shulhan באר הגולהRivkes (d. 1672), author of Arukh.[3] The inscription on its wall, and above the tombstone of R. Menahem Manes, reads:

פה מצבת הגאון הגדול ר‘ מאנש חיות

Here is the tombstone of the great Gaon, R. Manes Chajes

The Cemetery Attendant.

What has remained a mystery for more than one hundred years is the identity of the cemetery attendant. We shall attempt to identify him, and to restore him to his proper place in Jewish history.

The reader will wonder how I know that the person in the photograph was a cemetery attendant. Perhaps he was a tourist who just happened to be there on the day the Hochland Brothers Publishing Company arranged for a photograph to be taken for its postcard collection?

Initially, it was simply a hunch, largely due to ephemera, that is, other photos of visitors to the old Jewish cemetery in the interwar period. I have a collection of such photos, and either they feature the tourist (who handed his camera to the tour guide or to the cemetery attendant, and asked that his picture be taken in front of the Vilna Gaon’s tombstone or at the Ger Zedek’s mausoleum), or they feature a cemetery attendant who stands in those places, while the tourist, who knows how to use the camera, takes the photo. The tourists can always be recognized by their garb, which matches nothing worn by anyone else in Vilna. The cemetery attendants, functionaries of a division of the Jewish Kehilla (called Zedakah Gedolah at the time), all wear the same dress, a “Chofetz Chaim” type cap and a long coat, both inevitably dark grey or black. While I am not aware of another old Jewish cemetery photograph featuring the specific cemetery attendant seen in our postcard, his dress is precisely that of all the other cemetery attendants whose photos have been preserved.

But there is no need for guesswork here. Sholom Zelmanovich, a דערtalented artist and Yiddish playwright, published his [in 1934.[4 גר–צדק: ווילנער גראף פאטאצקי This three-act play commemorates the life and death of the legendary Ger Zedek of Vilna in a new and mystical mode.[5] The volume includes sixteen original drawings by Zelmanovich. Several of the drawings preserve details of Vilna’s old Jewish cemetery with seemingly incredible accuracy. Thus, for example, Zelmanovich depicts the northern entrance gate to the old Jewish cemetery, as well as the nearby Jewish caretaker’s house on the cemetery grounds, even though few photographs are extant that even begin to capture the details of those sites. His depiction of the Ger Zedek’s grave (and the human-like tree that hovered over it) is perfectly located in the south- eastern corner of the old Jewish cemetery, and is surrounded by the wooden fence that existed in that corner prior to 1926. Only someone who spent quality time in Vilna’s old Jewish cemetery could have known exactly where to place the entrance gate, the caretaker’s house, and the Ger Zedek’s grave. One other matter needs to be noticed. Zelmanovich dedicated the volume in memory of his deceased parents, Meir Yisrael son of Mordechai and Sheyne daughter of Broyne.[6]

In the summer of 1935, the municipal authorities of Vilna, then under Polish rule, announced their plan to demolish Vilna’s old Jewish cemetery and replace it with a soccer stadium. Vilna – and worldwide – Jewry did not stand idly by. Instead, they engaged in an extensive, and ultimately successful, battle against the municipal authorities. As part of its efforts to win over the municipal authorities, the Vilna Jewish community charged a young Jewish scholar, Israel Klausner,[7] with writing a history of the old Jewish cemetery. It would offer clear documentation and prove beyond doubt that various Polish kings and municipal authorities throughout the centuries had authorized the Jewish community to construct the cemetery and maintain it. The cemetery was legally the property of Vilna’s Jewish community. Klausner’s ,Vilna)קורות בית-העלמין הישן בוילנה monograph, entitled 1935), includes a discussion of the Ger Zedek’s grave. In a footnote,[8] Klausner mentions in passing Sholom Zelmanovich’s “recently published drama on the Ger Zedek,” and adds that Zelmanovich was the son of the caretaker of the old Jewish !Meir Yisrael Zelmanovich ,( בן בעל–הקברות :cemetery (Hebrew The plot thickens. is not really בעל– הקברותThe full force of the Hebrew term captured by the English term “caretaker.” There were a variety of cemetery attendants who worked in the old Jewish cemetery in various capacities (such as guiding visitors and leading them to the graves they wished to visit, reciting prayers at the graves, ground-keeping, repairing broken tombstones and re-inking their inscriptions, and guard duty). But one cemetery attendant was in charge of all the other attendants, and as we shall see, he and his family lived in the house on perhaps ,בעל– הקברות:the cemetery grounds. He was called best rendered as: “Cemetery Keeper” or “Managing Director” of the old Jewish cemetery. We have established that Meir Zelmanovich served in that capacity. But who was he when did he live?

Meir Zelmanovich.

Sadly, almost nothing is known about the life of Meir Zelmanovich. He published no books and wrote no essays. As best I can tell, only one newspaper report mentions his name during his lifetime.[9] The report itself is significant. It records a complaint made by Meir Zelmanovich in 1919 that the Polish legionnaires had desecrated the old Jewish cemetery. But it would be Zelmanovich’s tragic death in 1920 that would perpetuate his memory. Here, we need to provide some historical context. Israel Cohen begins his discussion of the impact of World War I on Vilna, as follows:[10]

Within the small space of eight years, from 1914 to 1922, the Jews of Vilna tasted of the blessings of nine different governments, and suffered from a combination of other evils even more noxious. They became a prey to economic depression, military requisitions, unemployment, famine and disease; thousands of them were subjected to forced labor, imprisonment, plunder and brutal attacks; and physical and material deterioration inevitably engendered a certain degree of social demoralization. All the variegated differences of principle, of religious outlook and sociological doctrine, were now forgotten in the inferno created by the common foe. The long protracted fight for civil and political rights had to yield to the more primitive and desperate struggle for mere existence.

Almost certainly, the greatest concentration of Jewish suffering in this period came in April of 1919, when the Polish legionnaires unleashed a pogrom against Vilna’s Jews. Israel Cohen describes the horrors that followed:[11]

The [Polish] legionnaires[12] defiled and desecrated the [old Jewish] cemetery, smashed the tombstones, and opened the graves (including some of Vilna’s earliest rabbis) in the belief that they would find in them arms and money. Disappointed in their search, the Poles transferred their attentions from the dead to the living and ran amuck in the Jewish quarter. For three days they seized Jews in the streets, dragged them out of their homes, bludgeoned them savagely, and looted their houses and shops. About 80 Jews were shot, mostly in the suburb of Lipuvka, where some were ordered to dig their own graves; others were buried alive, and others were drowned, with their hands tied, in the Vilia [now: Neris] River… All sorts of outrages were committed in those days by the Poles in celebration of their victory. They tied a Jew to a horse and dragged him through the streets for three miles. They took a sadistic delight in cutting off the beards and earlocks of pious Jews. They even arrested, assaulted and humiliated Rabbi Rubinstein and Dr. Shabad. Altogether, thousands of Jews in Vilna, as well as in Lida and Bialystock were imprisoned in various concentration camps where they were ill fed and beaten, and where they suffered from hunger and typhoid. Moreover the total loss due to destruction and pillaging of Jewish people in the pogrom, in Vilna alone, was estimated at about 20 million roubles (about $10,000,000).

Polish rule of Vilna came to an end when the Russians recaptured Vilna on July 14, 1920. Russian rule lasted for six weeks, after which the Russians retreated and left Vilna in the control of the Lithuanians. Lithuanian rule lasted until October 8, 1920, when the Poles once again recaptured Vilna. One can only imagine the fear that gripped the Jewish community in Vilna, when they heard the sounds of the approaching Polish legionnaires. In fact, hundreds (some claim: thousands) of Vilna’s Jews fled on October 8 to Kovno, then part of Independent Lithuania.[13] Indeed, there was what to fear, for the Polish legionnaires were free again to wreak havoc with Jewish lives. And although the severity of the pogrom of 1919 did not repeat itself, the indiscriminate murder, rape, and looting of Jews that took place in Vilna between October 8-10, 1920 was, at least in the eyes of the victims, yet another pogrom.[14] Briefly, eye-witness Yiddish accounts[15] record that at least 6 Jewish men and women were murdered, numerous women were raped, and some 80 Jews were mugged and robbed. No one was brought to justice for committing these crimes! On October 10, 1920 Meir Zelmanovich, Cemetery Keeper of the old Jewish cemetery in Vilna was murdered by the Polish legionnaires. He was 70 years old when he died. The official Jewish record of his death lists his home address as “Derewnicka 3.” This is the address of the house on the grounds of the old Jewish cemetery. It is no wonder that Sholom Zelmanovitch could depict so vividly the northern entrance gate to the cemetery, its nearby caretaker’s house, and the human-like tree hovering over the Ger Zedek’s grave. His childhood playground was the old Jewish cemetery in Vilna. On the picture postcard from 1916-1917, one sees an elderly Jew. One possibility is that it depicts none other than Meir Zelmanovitch, the Cemetery Keeper of the old Jewish cemetery until his death in 1920 at age 70. I suspected that this was the case, but could not prove it until recently — when a small miracle occurred.

Miracles Sometimes Do Occur.

In March of this year, out of the clear blue sky, I was contacted by Laurie Cowan, who introduced herself as a great- granddaughter of Meir Zelmanovich! She basically was interested in any information I could provide about her great- grandfather that she didn’t already know. I was delighted to make her acquaintance, but wondered what led her to me. It turns out that both of us were seeking information about the same person – Meir Zelmanovich – from the Lithuanian State Historical Archives in Vilnius. An alert researcher at the Archives noticed this, and made the “shidduch” between us. I shared with Laurie whatever I knew about her great- grandfather. In turn, I asked her to send me copies of whatever documents she had relating to her great-grandfather. She sent me a scan of the following photograph of her great- grandmother and great-grandfather, Sheyne[16] and Meir Zelmanovich: Never has it been so easy to identify an unidentified picture on a one-hundred year old picture postcard! One suspects that the picture postcard company representative, and a photographer, met with the Cemetery Keeper Meir Zelmanovich at the old Jewish cemetery in Shnipishok. He led them to the mausoleum of R. Menahem Manes Chajes, and was asked to pose at the tombstone just outside it. He graciously accepted the invitation. This may well have been the last photo taken of Zelmanovich, and it preserves, together with the photo provided by Laurie Cowan, the likeness of a martyr who fell during the October 1920 mini-pogrom in Vilna.[17]

At least six Jews were murdered between October 8-10 in 1920 in Vilna. They died for one reason only, namely, because they were Jews. Such Jews are regarded as martyrs and their names, at the very least, deserve to be recorded and remembered. Until now, none of the names of the Vilna martyrs of 1920 have been published in any public Jewish record, whether in a contemporary Jewish newspaper, or a Jewish historical essay or book, or an online posting. Having examined the extant records in the Lithuanian State Historical Archives, I have been able to retrieve the 6 names of the Jewish victims who were murdered in Vilna in October of 1920. In each case, the Jewish Kehillah records of Vilna in 1920 state clearly in Hebrew that ,.i.e) נהרגה or נהרגthe cause of death was either murdered). The names are:

1. Shmuel ben Mendel Katz, age 56, died October 9.

2. Etel Natin, age 36, died October 9.

3. Basya Natin, age 32, died October 9.

4. Rokhl Blume Shuster, age 45, died October 9.

5. Meir Zelmanovich, age 70, died October 10.

6. Shlomo Abramovich, age 17, died October 12.[18]

May the memory of these martyrs be forever for a blessing! [19]

NOTES: the People of the Book the world over, mourn the ,עם הספר * death of R. Shmuel Ashkenazi in Jerusalem, at the age of 98. .the consummate master of the Hebrew book ,שר הספר He was Bibliographer, bibliophile, and book collector, his encyclopedic knowledge of all of Hebrew and Yiddish literature remains unparalleled in our time. His most recent contributions appeared in three massive volumes, replete with some 1,794 pages of immaculate scholarship. He never wasted a word; he wrote with precision and parsimony. Among his many accomplishments, he edited the Kasher Passover Haggadah, one of the most significant scholarly editions of the Passover Haggadah ever published. He was largely responsible for the single most accurate bibliography of Hebrew books ever The Bibliography of the :מפעל הביבליוגרפיה העברית ,produced Hebrew Book 1473-1960. Aside from his scholarly distinction, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi wrote in an elegant Hebrew with its own special charm. Not only did he advance discussion, but he did so in an aesthetically pleasing manner. For those of us who knew him personally, he evinced the same charm in his personal relationships that he did in his writings. He set a standard of excellence that we can only strive to emulate, but never !יהא זכרו ברוך .really replicate

This essay is dedicated to his memory, a token of appreciation for all he has taught me.

[1] Dovid Katz, “World War I Postcard of the Grave of Rabbi Menachem Manes Chayes (1560-1636) in the Old Vilna Jewish Cemetery,” Defending History (11 March 2020), available here) A copy of our postcard can also be seen online at ‘YIVO 1000 Towns’, record ID 10743 (http://yivo1000towns.cjh.org). [2] For a fuller discussion of R. Menahem Manes Chajes and his epitaph, see S. Leiman, “A Picture and its One Thousand Words: The Old Jewish Cemetery of Vilna Revisited,” The Seforim Blog, January 14, 2016, especially notes 7-11, online here. [3] Aside from his pivotal commentary on R. Joseph Karo’s Shulhan Arukh, R. Moshe Rivkes was a great-great grandfather of the Vilna Gaon. [4] Precious little is known about Sholom Zelmanovich לעקסיקאן פוןSee the brief biographical entry in .(1898-1941) ,(Martin Press: New York, 1960)דער נייער יידישער ליטעראטור vol. 3, column 670, which mistakenly lists him as being born in a town near Kovno, circa 1903. He was born in Vilna in 1898 (JewishGen) and died during one of the first Nazi aktions in the Kovno Ghetto. [5] In general, see Joseph H. Prouser, Noble Soul: The Life and Legend of the Vilna Ger Tzedek Count Walenty Potocki (Gorgias Press: Piscataway, 2005). Prouser’s excellent monograph is a study of the many literary reworkings of the legends surrounding the Vilna Ger Zedek, with primary focus on 20th century Jewish literary contributions. Strangely, he offers no discussion of Zelmanovich’s contribution. [6] On the feminine Yiddish name “Broyne,” see Alexander Beider, Dictionary of Ashkenazic Given Names(Avotaynu: Bergenfield, 2001), pp. 484-486. [7] Klausner (1905-1981) settled in Palestine in 1936 and continued to be a prolific author of studies and books on the history of Vilna’s Jewish community. Aside from several important monographs, like his history of the old Jewish cemetery, he wrote a two-volume history of Jewish Vilna Ghetto) וילנה ירושלים דליטא: דורות האחרונים entitled 1939-1881 Fighters’ House: Tel-Aviv, 1983), to which a third volume treating 1495-1881 was added posthumously, based largely on studies previously published by Klausner. .p. 45, note 1 ,קורות בית–העלמין הישן בוילנה [8] [9] See Vytautas Jogela, “The Old Jewish Cemetery in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” Lituanus, vol. 61, no. 4 (2015), pp. 81-82. [10] Israel Cohen, Vilna (Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia, 1943), pp. 358-359. [11] Ibid., pp. 378-379. [12] Cohen regularly spells the word: “legionaries.” For the sake of consistency, I have spelled the word “legionnaires” throughout this essay. פנקס פאר דער in ”מיטל– “ליטע ,See, e.g., Boaz Wolfson [13] .B)געשיכטע פון ווילנע אין די יארן פון מלחמה און אקופאציע Zionson: Vilna, 1922), column 387. [14] There are probably as many definitions of “pogrom” as there are scholars and politicians. Since it is unclear whether the crimes committed on October 8-10, 1920 were planned and implemented by either a government or a political action committee, and since the duration of the attacks was short and rather swiftly brought under control, historians are reluctant to refer to the events that occurred on October 8-10, 1920 as a pogrom. On the other hand, to label those events a mere “disturbance” does not begin to capture the malevolent intent of the perpetrators directed specifically against Jews, and does not address the intensity of Jewish suffering at the time. For some of the different views regarding the definition of “pogrom,” and how the term has been manipulated by political interests, see Szymon Rudnicki’s forthcoming essay “The Vilna Pogrom of 19-21 April 1919,” to appear in Polin 33 (2020). Professor Rudnicki kindly allowed me to see a pre-publication copy of his lucid and informative essay. .B) אין שטורם,Wolfson, loc. cit. Cf. Jacob Wygodski [15] Kletzkin: Vilna, 1926), pp. 217-221. [16] Sheyne Zelmanovich died in Vilna on October 26, 1921, at age 68 (JewishGen). She lived in her home on the old Jewish cemetery grounds until her death. In a personal communication, Laurie Cowan informed me that the Zelmanoviches had 10 children who survived to adulthood. The th6 child, Beirach (popularly called: Berik; and later, Ben), was her grandfather, an older brother of Sholom mentioned above. [17] The only other extant likeness of Meir Zelmanovich (known to me, and recovered on July 15, 2020) is an undated passport photo (circa 1916) preserved in the Lithuanian State Historical Archives. During the German occupation, all residents of Vilna were required to have – and to carry at all times – a German passport (we would call it: an Identity Card). Meir Zelmanovich’s German passport photo confirms the identity and authenticity of the photos of Zelmanovich published in this essay. All three photos are of one, and the same, person. [18] One suspects that Abramovich may have been shot or beaten on October 9 and 10, like the others, but did not die from his wounds until the 12th. [19] This essay could not have been written without the help of Regina Kopilevich, researcher (and tour guide) extraordinaire, who located whatever documents I sought at the Lithuanian State Historical Archives (Lietuvos Valstybes Istorijos Archyvas) in Vilnius. I am indebted to the librarians at the Archives for allowing her and me to examine these and other documents during my visits to Vilnius. Next to Google, JewishGen is a modern Jewish historian’s best friend, and we are grateful to all who contribute to making JewishGen the great historical resource that it is. Matt Jelen’s careful reading of an earlier draft has significantly improved the final version. I alone am responsible for whatever errors appear in this essay. The Fundraising Campaign to Print the Letters of Rabbi Shmuel Ashkenazi (1922-2020)

The Fundraising Campaign to Print

the Letters of Rabbi Shmuel Ashkenazi (1922-2020)

By Eliezer Brodt

Over Shabbos one of the hidden giants of the seforim world, both within ultra-orthodox and academic circles, was niftar; a man known as Rabbi Shmuel Askenazi. He was 98 and lived in Batei Ungarin in Meah Shearim. (seen here with Rav Yechiel Goldhaber)

R. Ashkenazi authored many books and hundreds of articles in dozens of journals – both academic and charedi. Besides for authoring so much, he assisted many people in both circles helping in many areas of the Jewish literature.

Just a few hours ago a beautiful hesped tribute for R. Ashkenazi was published by my close friend (and Seforim Blog co-editor) Menachem Butler at Tablet Magazine, available here.

I hope to write a proper article about him in the very near future as I was privileged to get to know him very well for many years. Indeed, for the past number of years I have joined together with a group of friends to raise the necessary funds to print his writings, and would like to share with you details about our project this week.

Brief Background

A few years ago a partial bibliography of his writings was printed in a work called Alfa Beta Kadmita de-Shmuel Zeira. The background to the publication of this volume is that R. Askenazi had been writing and collection information on thousands of topics for over eighty years. Unfortunately, he did not print much of what he gathered. The main reason for this was R. Ashkenzi’s “weakness” for incredible levels of perfection.

More than a dozen years ago, several people began to try to prepare his writing for print, and an effort was painstakingly undertaken by Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Stahl and colleagues. Three volumes have already printed, for example see here and more are ready to go, with several sample chapters appearing at the Seforim Blog several years ago (see here).

The topics that these works deal with are virtually everything on some level, sources on expressions, minhaghim, dininm, evolution of famous stories, bibliography, corrections of authors’ errors, encyclopedic style information on thousands of topics culled from thousands of seforim many of them very rare or unknown. In addition, there are R. Askenazi’s notes on tefilah, piyut, Chumash, Shas, Zohar, and from other seforim that he annotated on the side.

It is so painful to say that the current delay of publication is funding.

As we are still within the week of mourning of our teacher R. Shmuel Ashkenai, we seek assistance to help print his collection of letters. There are nearly one thousand letters from R. Ashkenazi to people all over the world, beginning from 1942 (!) and continuing onward including to all types of noted authors, scholars, and professors. The topics of these letters range from tracing expressions, sources for numerous statements in Chazal or piyut, minhaghim, the evolution of famous stories, bibliography and much much more.

It’s a work that anyone interested in the Jewish Book will find many things to enjoy. We cannot underestimate the significance of this collection of letters, which provide a window into his world of interlocutors and correspondents. To quote just one of the many testimonies found in Menachem Butler’s article from Seforim Blog contributor Professor Shnayer Leiman, who writes:

Reb Shmuel was “bibliographer, bibliophile, and book collector, and his encyclopedic knowledge of all of Hebrew and Yiddish literature remains unparalleled in our time.” His collected writings are an intellectual treasure trove, “covering a wide range of topics in the field of Jewish Studies. Aside from his scholarly distinction, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi wrote in an elegant Hebrew with its own special charm. Not only did he advance discussion, but he did so in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Let it be said openly: this… set will enlighten every reader and will significantly advance scholarship. Anyone concerned with advancing the cause of quality Jewish scholarship will take special delight in the publication of these volumes…During his lifetime [Ashkenazi] corresponded with the greatest Jewish scholars and bibliographers the world over. They wrote to him, for only he could solve the countless historical and literary problems that stumped them. Suffice to list among those who consulted him: Gershom Scholem (distinguished Jewish historian); S.Y. Agnon (Nobel Prize laureate); Judah Leib Maimon Fishman (Minister of Religions, Israel); and a stellar list of prominent Jewish historians, rabbinic scholars, and bibliographers, much too long to list here (e.g., Simha Assaf; Israel Ta-Shma; Meir Benayahu; A.M. Habermann; Avraham Yaari; and Naftali Ben Menahem).

The volumes are ready to be typeset and then ready to go to print right – 1,000 pages, printed in two volumes, and will be issued in a very limited edition. It will be available for purchase in several weeks. (The only lines missing from the book are those of the benefactors for the project.) We are looking for sponsors to assist in defraying the cost of publication, and we hope that you can help contribute. Tax deductions for sums over $250 are available, and every patron who pledges $250 or greater will receive a complimentary copy of the two-volume set with shipping. American tax deductions available for those who contribute for the sponsorship levels of $250, $500, $1,000, or $2,500. Upon the publication of the volumes in several weeks, full details with ordering information will be made available at the Seforim Blog, and the books will possibly be available in select bookstores, while supplies last.

(We know that financial times are very difficult, and so even a little bit can assist this project move forward. For more information please email me at [email protected].)

Book sale

At the same time due to requests worth mention is that some of his earlier works are still available for purchase.

His first work titled *Alfa Beta Kadmita de-Shmuel Zeira* (844 pp.) there are still a very limited amount of copies left, the price is $52.

The second work (two volumes) is being greatly reduced for a short time only, for $32.

His third work *Assufah* is available for $13.

(For more information about anything related to this project or purchasing his works contact me at [email protected]).

Jewish Treasures From Oxford Libraries

JEWISH TREASURES FROM OXFORD LIBRARIES

By Paul Shaviv

Ed. Rebecca Abrams and Cesar Merchan-Hamann / Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, 2020 / ISBN 978 1 85124 502 4 / Available in the USA via Amazon $55

307pp, 140 full-colour plates

Oxford,[1] the ‘City of Dreaming Spires’, is one of the world’s greatest repositories of Hebraica and Judaica, both books and manuscripts.

This sumptuous volume was initiated at the encouragement and support of Martin J. Gross, a New Jersey philanthropist and Jewish community activist. It is a bargain at the price. The book is absolutely handsome – the quality of the printing is outstanding, and it is printed on 135gsm paper.

The core of ‘Jewish Treasures from Oxford Libraries’ describes seven collectors and their eponymous collections, which together constitute the Hebraica holding of the Bodleian library; plus a description of smaller, but important, holdings of some individual College libraries; and the Genizah fragments held in Oxford. There are additional essays describing the history of the Bodleian itself, and the role of successive Librarians in encouraging the acquisition of Hebrew (and other ‘Oriental’) manuscripts; of the great cataloguers (Neubauer and Cowley); and of other benefactors, including the amazing figure of John Selden.[2]

Each chapter is written by different scholars. Archbishop Laud (1573–1645), by Giles Mandelbrote; Edward Pococke (1604-1691) by Benjamin Williams; Robert Huntington (1637-1701) by Simon Mills and Cesar Merchan-Hamann; Benjamin Kennicott (1718-1783) by Theodor Dunkelgrun; Matteo Luigi Canonici (1727-1805) by Dorit Raines; Rabbi David Oppenheim (1664-1736) by Joshua Teplitzky; and Heimann Joseph Michael (1792-1846) by Saverio Campanini. Each describes the biography of the collector, the characteristics and most important items of their collection, and how and why they amassed them.

The first thing that readers will note is that only the last two are Jewish. Even in the case of David Oppenheim, his unique collection of approximately 4,500 printed books and just under 1,000 bound volumes of manuscripts languished in storage in Europe until Revd. Alexander Nicoll, the Regius Professor of Hebrew, engineered its purchase by the Library. Otherwise they are a parade of Anglican Divines and Christian Hebraists (except Canonici, who was a Jesuit), witness to the intense interest (and expertise) in Hebrew and Jewish Studies by non-Jewish scholars in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The stories of the collections are fascinating. Ambassadors, merchants and missionaries all have a part in purchasing (and pursuing) manuscripts. A special place seems to be occupied by the ‘Chaplains’ attached to the Embassies – one can surmise that they both had some expertise in Hebrew, even if rudimentary, and also perhaps time to devote to the ‘hunt’. We visit the great cities of the ‘Orient’ – Constantinople, Damascus, Aleppo, Cairo, and of Europe – Italy, Spain and Germany.

The objectives and interests of each collector were different. Some – Oppenheim is the obvious example – were happy to scoop up whatever was on the market. Kennicott was interested in Biblical material, resulting in his two-volume study of variations in extant biblical texts. Along the way, each of them acquired examples of the most magnificent decorated and illuminated works, covering the entire span of Judaica – texts, contracts, ketubot, from every place. The calligraphy itself is to be savoured and enjoyed. As mentioned, the 140 full-colour (and often full-page) plates do all of this justice.

Although overshadowed by Cambridge, Oxford too has significant Genizah holdings – described by Nadia Vidro. These were acquired in the nineteenth century and pre-dated Solomon Schechter’s bulk removal of the Genizah contents to Cambridge. They are apparently strong in Talmudic texts, and also include an autograph copy of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah – complete with alterations and editing notes. Adolph Neubauer sifted through the material; kept the largest fragments, often complete or semi-complete pages – and rejected the remainder, which were sold on to Elkan Adler. Neubauer could not foresee the techniques available later, and utilized in Cambridge, to read, identify and reap the benefits of the tiniest pieces.

It is very difficult to summarize such a wide-ranging work in a short review. I am left with several thoughts:

In the case of the Bodleian, their holdings were purchased, not plundered, although the circumstances by which the objects came into the possession of previous owners is not necessarily known. The scholarship, and enthusiasms, of the Christian Hebraists, familiar to scholars, is of course little appreciated in today’s wider Jewish community. Were it not for them, many, many of these works would be lost. Were it not for the conscientious curation and preservation of these books and manuscripts by non-Jewish, mainly academic, libraries, they would almost certainly be lost, and even if they existed, would probably be far less accessible.

The sheer aesthetic beauty of many of the manuscripts speaks of a different culture. Even if, as is surmised, many were illustrated by non-Jewish professional artists[3] – they were commissioned by Jewish patrons. Even the almost-certainly Jewish artists (of Ketubot and the like) seem to show a joyfulness absent from our contemporary production of texts; which I take as a reflection of a certain dour outlook and philosophy. The same comment could be made about the narrowness of contemporary religious publishing compared to the width of thought, concern and scholarship of our forebears.

On a different perspective, as an (ex-pat) Anglo-Jew, and a former graduate student of Jewish Studies at Oxford (way back in the 1970’s!), I have to again sigh at the neglect of its own treasures by the Anglo-Jewish community[4]. Even the initiator of this project hails from New Jersey! Perhaps a ray of optimism may come from the fairly recent appointment of Prof. Judith Olszowy Schlanger as head of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies (formerly housed at Yarnton Manor)? Until now, most of the OCHJS Presidents have been specialists in one or another aspect of the ancient world, or of other, wider areas of Jewish study. This is not to disparage any of these eminent scholars in any way whatsoever! But Professor Olszowy Schlanger has already published on Anglo-Norman and pre-Expulsion manuscripts; perhaps we will see fresh scholarship on English and European rabbinic study from her Presidency, from still- to-be-researched corners of the Bodleian!

A great read, a great book to possess, and – happy are they who may receive this book as a perfect gift!

[1] The city has a rich Jewish history of its own, which is thought to date back to 1075. Two (!) complementary websites both give excellent information and resources about Jewish Oxford. The first site, sponsored by the local Jewish community, whose supervisory committee includes one of the editors of the volume under review, is www.oxfordjewishheritage.co.uk . Clicking on the small window labelled ‘Jewish Heritage’ in the middle of the homepage of Oxford Chabad www.oxfordchabad.org opens up a surprisingly academic and scholarly range of material on Jewish Oxford. Both recommended! [2] The present Bodley Librarian, Richard Ovenden, writes a Foreword; Cesar Merchan-Hamann a general Introduction; Rahel Fronda writes on the smaller College collections; and Piet van Boxel on the cataloguers. Mr. Martin J. Gross, the book’s ‘prime mover’, contributes an elegant Preface! [3] See, for example, plate 114, from Ms. Michael 627 – from a Yom Kippur mahzor, where a non-Jewish artist, not knowing which way up the Hebrew is written, has the illustrations drawn upside down on the page. [4] Painfully, the single most important Anglo-Jewish artefact, the dated pre-Expulsion Chumash mss, shown to H.M. The Queen to demonstrate the depth of Jewish experience in England, was sold at the Valmadonna Auction. The purchaser remains anonymous. It is not known if it is still in the UK. If it is, it is neither displayed nor accessible. The Bomberg Talmud, also sold by the Valmadonna Trust, is now in New York City after being in Westminster Abbey for centuries.

‘Yikar Sahaduta Dipum Bidatta’ R. Tzvi Hirsch Levin, the Besamim Rosh and the Chida

‘Yikar Sahaduta Dipum Bidatta’

R. Tzvi Hirsch Levin, the Besamim Rosh and the Chida

Rabbi Moshe Maimon, Jackson NJ

Some of the worst epidemics we have known in our history have indirectly been the catalyst for important contributions by scholars who produced their valuable works under quarantine. Eliezer Brodt has published in these pages considerable lists of such scholarship, from bygone plagues down to the current terrible epidemic, which highlight the vast scope of this literary bounty.

I recently came across a very interesting sefer-epidemic connection which I have not seen mentioned yet. This material highlights the contribution of a scholar who was quite probably in quarantine when he produced his indices to a well-known and much debated sefer—R. Saul Berlin’s storied publication, Besamim Rosh. Perhaps most famous (or infamous) for its reputation as the ultimate rabbinic forgery, an exhaustive history of this volume has already been written (and interested readers would do well to refresh their memory with the excellent survey in this blog post by Dan Rabinowitz & Eliezer Brodt; see also Eliezer Brodt’s exhaustive bibliography on the subject in a footnote in Yeshurun, vol. 24, pp. 425-427). My own study of the saga of this sefer during the present COVID-19 quarantine era can hopefully shed light on some striking details pertaining to this account.

R. Tzvi Hirsch Levin in defense of Besamim Rosh

Those who have followed the rocky history associated with Besamim Rosh will recall the strenuous defense of this sefer penned by R. Saul’s father, R. Tzvi Hirsh Levin, rabbi of Berlin, and reproduced in the introduction to Rabbi Amar’s recent edition of Besamim Rosh, and most recently, together with a facsimile of the original, in R. Yisroel Chaim Tessler’s comprehensive overview of the history of R. Saul Berlin and the Besamim Rosh in Pe’alim LaTorah (vol. 34 pp. 226-229).

Modern books of Hebrew Bibliography, such as Friedberg’sBet Eked Sefarim and Winograd’s Otzar HaSefer Ha’Ivri, contain an entry for a separate pamphlet published by R. Zvi Hirsch Levin written in defense of the Besamim Rosh entitled Yikar Sahaduta. This has led some to conclude that in addition to his letter of defense, R. Levin also wrote an additional pamphlet to clear his son of any suspicion. As far as I could tell, a separate pamphlet by this name is not to be found in any library or other public holding (cf. the aforementioned Pe’alim LaTorah article fn. 61), however, the Heimann Michael collection contains an entry on p. 250 for a copy of אוצרות חיים catalogue Besamim Rosh which has an additional pamphlet by R. Tzvi Hirsch Levin by this name appended to it, and this is likely the source for the entry in the aforementioned bibliographies.

As the printed books from Heimann Michael collection were later purchased by the British Library, it stands to reason that we may yet be able to ascertain if this Yikar Sahaduta is indeed a separate publication, though I have a hunch it is none other than R. Levin’s famous (untitled) letter that must have been bound at a later date with the sefer (as it is in R. Levin’s manuscript copy of the Besamim Rosh held at The Russian State Military Archives, see here).

The existence of a volume of R. Saul’s earlier controversial work, Mitzpeh Yakte’el (Berlin 1789), bound with R. Levin’s letter in defense of the Besamim Rosh, would lend some weight to this supposition. This copy is attested to by Moshe Carmilly-Weinberger, in his Sefer VeSayaf (New York 1967, pp. 213-215), who was somehow misled by it into thinking that the defense of Besamim Rosh was written and published with Mitzpeh Yakte’el four years prior to the actual publication of the Besamim Rosh! In any event, the British Library is at present closed to staff and public alike due to Covid-19 restrictions, and I have had to arrest my investigation of the matter for now.

While In Seclusion…

This untitled letter starts with some rhymed prose, beginning with the and continues on with a passionate defense of the ,איש עניו words integrity of the sefer, and includes a barely restrained attack on those who dare to impugn it. R. Levin writes that anyone who disparages this sefer is besmirching the good name of R. Levin himself, for it was he who had given the sefer his imprimatur after reading it in manuscript form (prepared for him by his other son, R. Shlomo, later famous as R. Solomon Hirschell, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain). The manuscript had been in his possession for close to ten years prior to its 1793 printing, and it was R. Levin himself who had helped prepare the indices for this volume during his stay in Pyrmont:

והנה מעידני עלי שמים וארץ כי הספר הלז הועתק לי מבני הרבני המופלג ומושלם כמוהר”ר שלמה נר”ו זה כעשר שנים, ואני בעצמי עשיתי לו המפתחות כסדר הטורים בפרמונד… ואם כדברי המתקדשים הללו בי אני העון אשר הסכמתי להוציאם לאורה ולא על בני הגאון נר”ו לבד תלונתם כי אם גם עלי. [I call heaven and earth as my witnesses that this sefer was copied for me about ten years ago by my son, the distinguished and perfect rabbi, R. Solomon, may G-d protect and keep him, and I personally prepared the indices according to the order of the Tur in Pyrmont… and if these sanctimonious hypocrites are correct, then the fault lies with me for sanctioning the publication; their grievance is not just with my son [R. Saul], the exemplary scholar, may G-d keep and protect him, but rather with me as well]

R. Menachem Silber pointed out to me that this Pyrmont is most probably the resort and spa town Bad Pyrmont. Here is a contemporary depiction of the promenade between the baths and the town of Pyrmont from 1780, about the time of R. Levin’s stay there, courtesy of Wikipedia.

R. Levin does not explain in this letter the significance of his stay in Pyrmont. However, in an entry in his journal, published by his descendant, R. Tzvi Michaelsohn, in his responsa Tirosh VeYitzhar in the section at the end of the sefer devoted to his antecedents’ novellae (new pagination, p. 35), we read the following:

כל זה כתבתי לי זה רבות בשנים ועתה בשנת תקו”ם לפ”ק בהיותי בפירמונד ונשב בד בבד ואין ספרים הצריכים בידי כי אם מעט אשר לקחתי מביתי ומהם ס’ בשמים ראש כ”י )ברור שכך צ”ל, ובמקור “כו'” וכנראה נשתבש המעתיק בהעתקת כתה”י – .(MM

[I had written the above some years ago, but now in the year 1786, while dwelling in solitude in Pyrmont, I have few sefarim with me save for the few that I was able to take with me from home, including the sefer Besamim Rosh in manuscript].

This manuscript’s placement in Pyrmont is further evidenced by an inscription on the manuscript by one Yechiel Michel b. R. Isserl who, writing in Pyrmont (the date 1757 given in the JNULcatalogue is obviously an error in transcription), attests that the volume was in the possession of “the exemplary scholar and great rabbi of Berlin and its environs” (a reference to R. Levin himself). Later (p. 41), R. Levin writes further of his stay in Pyrmont:

ב”ה פירמונד. לאשר אין אתי כי אם ספרי משניות ושאר ספרי דבי רב אינם נמצאים כאן אמרתי לרשום כל העולה בלבי עד ירחם ה‘ לנו ונעיין בה.

[By the Grace of G-d, Pyrmont: Having no sefarim with me here, save for a set of Mishnayot and a few other rabbinic volumes, I have determined to note whatever thoughts occur to me until God has mercy on us and I have the opportunity to do further research on them].

I have not found confirmation of an epidemic in the environs of Berlin in the year 1786, but the fact that R. Levin bemoaned his having to remain in solitude in Pyrmont, bereft of his holy works, until God shows mercy on his people, does strongly indicate that he was not there on vacation, but was forced to shelter in place there to avoid the plague. Perhaps one of the readers can supply more information and shed light on this episode.

Be that as it may, it is clear that R. Levin took advantage of his time in Pyrmont to thoroughly review the manuscript volume of Besamim Rosh (see also further references to Besamim Rosh in his novella, ibid. p. 38 section 41:3, 42:6 and p. 44 section 56:1), and it was then that he created the indices for the sefer. This must have been no small feat, as he was likely forced to rely in great part on his prodigious memory due to the dearth of basic source material available at Pyrmont.

Noteworthy in itself is that the manuscript of Besamim Rosh was among the few volumes R. Levin took with him to Pyrmont, indicative of his interest – unique among his contemporaries – in manuscript works of Rishonim. Further testament to this interest is R. Levin’s copy of a manuscript of Sefer Ra’avyah (today known as The Beth Din & Beth Hamidrash Library, London, England Ms. 11) which later formed the basis of the new edition published by R. David Deblitzky (Bnei Braq 2005), and which contains many glosses in R. Levin’s hand. One such gloss actually concerns the Besamim Rosh, and it is published here for the first time in its entirety (it is cited in R. Deblitzky’s edition, vol. 1 p. 40 fn. 14, though R. Deblitzky had trouble deciphering a couple of words):

נראה שיש כאן חסרון לשון ומ”מ אנו למדין ממנו שמחלוקת ישנה היא אי בעל קרי מותר בתפילין וכאשר כתבתי במקום אחר לסתום פי דוברי נבלה אשר שננו לשונם דבר מר על ספר בשמים ראש

[There appears to be a lacunae here, however, we may adduce from this statement that the debate with regards to the permissibility of a Ba’al Keri to wear tefillin is an old one, and I already wrote on this elsewhere to silence the speakers of mendacity (cf. Yeshayahu 9:16 – MM) who sharpened their tongues to speak ill of the seferBesamim Rosh].

Besamim Rosh in the Chida’s Shem HaGedolim

Once on the topic of the Besamim Rosh and R. Levin’s letter of defense of it, I would like to revisit the issue of the Chida’s opinion of the sefer, and his response to R. Levin’s missive supporting it. (I had touched on this previously in a note to an article for Yeshurun vol. 28 p. 935 fn. 3).

Our primary concern will be with the entry on Besamim Rosh in the Chida’s popular bibliographical work, Shem HaGedolim, though our study of his views will give us occasion to examine statements in various other works of his as well (followed by loose translations of these statements that aim to preserve the intent of the Chida’s rich rhetorical melitza, if not necessarily its literal translation). In the course of our study, it will serve us well to bear in mind that the Chida was ever the prolific writer who particularly favored the Sephardic style of journalistic study, and in the course of his study he would constantly note in his journals anything he wished to be able to refer to later.

[In Sephardic parlance these journals would be calledZichronot – perhaps best rendered in English as ‘reminders’ – as distinct from the same term used in Ashkenazic circles to denote memoir literature. For the Chida’s own use of the term in describing his journals see the list in the bibliographical work Maranan VeRabanan appended to the Machon HaMao’r edition of Shem HaGedolim vol. 2 p. 52 #17. This list adds to the scant entry in the previous edition of Maranan VeRabanan, Jerusalem 1991, though it is far from comprehensive. The Chida also alluded to this term in the naming of his seferEyn Zocher as evidenced in his prelude there].

The Chida’s prolific sefarim output was based on this method of study, as he would use the material in these diaries for publication in his many sefarim (compare in general Meir Benayahu’s description of the Chida’s method of arranging his notes for publication in his biography, Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulay, Jerusalem, 1959, p. 93). Perhaps unique among his peers in this regard, the Chida, with his keen bibliographical instinct, was also accustomed to jot down historical and bibliographical items of interest to him, and these notations would later form the basis of his various works which together form his celebrated Shem HaGedolim (cf. Oded Cohen’s doctoral dissertation on the Chida’s cultural world: Chadashim Gam Yeshanim, Tel Aviv University, 2016, from p. 169, and recently, in the introduction to the new edition of Shem Hagedolim published by Machon HaMa’or (Jerusalem, 2019).

Contemporary editions of this work are all based on the 1852 edition, edited and published in Vilna by Yitzchak Isaac Ben-Jacob. This volume is an amalgamation of two separate, though similar, works published in various editions by the Chida, Shem HaGedolim and Va’ad Lechachamim, along with various supplemental additions appended by him to some of his subsequent works, ordered in separate arrangements – by names of scholars and by names of publications. On this edition in general, and on the editorial discretion (and liberties) employed by its publisher in particular, see the excellent article by Oded Cohen, ‘The Freedom of Editing: Isaac Benjacob’s Re-editing of Hida’s Shem Ha-gedolim’, in Zutot 10 (2013), pp. 71-87 (based on his aforementioned dissertation, from p. 182; in both sources the date for Ben Jacob’s edition is given as 1853, seemingly based on a simple computation of the Hebrew date, however the date 1852 is clearly listed on the title page, so ,תרי”ג the sefer must have been published in the few months remaining to that year after Rosh Hashana). This streamlined format is very beneficial as it made it easy to access all of the Chida’s previously disassembled comments on a particular sefer or author, and this popular format has been reproduced in all subsequent editions. Yet, while Ben-Jacob was careful to delineate the various sources from the Chida’s publications used in each particular entry, and noted them in his footnotes, the later editions omitted his notations altogether. This has proven to be a major drawback since when attempting to unpack the chronological progression of the Chida’s views concerning a specific sefer, tracking down the earlier works that now comprise the Shem HaGedolim is often indispensable in determining what he had written when. The new Machon HaMa’or edition does make some headway in this regard, and many times the varying publications that make up a specific entry in this edition are sourced in the notes. However, as explained in their introduction, they chose not to replicate Ben-Jacob’s system, but rather to incorporate these sources in their own notes when deemed important, without systematically annotating the text. This is a regrettable decision, as without a systematic formula by which the reader can identify the different sources, the reader is often at a loss in determining that what appears at times to be one unified entry, has in fact been culled from a variety of sources.

The entry on Besamim Rosh is one such example, since this entry contains three separate statements regarding the sefer – from two different publications and espousing different views. The written record in the Chida’s other works contains varied positions towards the sefer; an initial enthusiastic reception shifting to reserved suspicion, and finally, unqualified acceptance. Only by classifying the differing statements chronologically, is it possible to ascertain the progression of his opinions.

The Chida’s Evolving Assessment

The first statement in Shem HaGedolim concerning this sefer comes from the entry for Besamim Rosh in the first volume of his sefer Va’ad LeChachamim, a bibliographical sequel to the two previously published volumes of Shem HaGedolim. Va’ad LeChachamim was first published in 1796, though this entry was apparently written very shortly after the 1793 publication of Besamim Rosh, as indicated by the opening words :”just now“= ”עתה מקרוב“

בשמים ראש – עתה מקרוב נדפס ספר זה בברלין ושיש בו סימנים שצ”ב מתשובות הרא”ש ושאר גדולים וזה שמו בשמים גימטריא שצ”ב. רא”ש תשובות הרא”ש. וזה הספר הכינו וקבצו וחקרו הרב הגדול מהר”ר יצחק די מולינא ז”ל אשר מצא ספר גדול משו”ת הרא”ש וגדולים אחרים אצל גביר אחד והוא סילת וזיקק ולקט קובץ זה ועשה עליו הגהות כמפורש שם. ועוד יש הגהות כסא דהרסנא.

[Besamim Rosh – This sefer has just now published in Berlin, and it has 392 responsa from the Rosh and other great rabbis, and it is thus called Besamim, the numerical value of which is 392. This volume was collected and prepared for publication by the great rabbi, our esteemed teacher R. Yitzchak De Molina of blessed memory, who found a large volume of responsa from the Rosh and other great rabbis at the home of a wealthy patron, and he sifted through them and collected the select ones to which he appended his comments as described within. There are also included a section of comments entitledKasa DeHarsena].

The decidedly reserved tone of this entry is readily apparent, and the reason for this is immediately explained by the Chida’s observation below:

ואשמע אחרי קול רעש כי יש בספר זה קצת דברים זרים ואמרו שהמעתיק הראשון בארץ תוגרמה מכ”י הרב יצחק די מולינא ז”ל יש לחוש שהוסיף וגרע. ולכן הקורא בס’ זה לא יסמוך עליו דאפשר דתלי בוקי סריקי בגדולים עד אשר יחקור ויברר הדברים ודברי אמת ניכרים. ודי בזה.

[I subsequently heard a clamor to the effect that there are some strange things in this sefer, and that the person in Turkey who first transcribed this sefer from the original manuscript of R. Yitzchak De Molina of blessed memory, may have perhaps added and detracted. Therefore, one who reads this sefer should not rely on it as there exists the possibility that nonsensical things have been attributed to great rabbis, unless he first investigates and clarifies the matter; and indeed, authentic material is recognizable as such. Let this suffice].

The Chida, one of the most outstanding rabbinic scholars and bibliophiles of his time, was typically very enthusiastic about newly published rabbinic manuscripts. His writings are replete with references to new ones he had seen, and from which he gleaned various insights for inclusion in his own sefarim.

The publication of the Besamim Rosh understandably excited him and he perused it for insight into topics he had himself dealt with in his writings. In his collection of halachic essays, Tov Ayin, published in the same volume as the aforementioned Va’ad LeChachamim, some of the insights gleaned from this perusal are recorded in various sections (#8, 9, 18:12,29,86).

In fact, one particular section (#9), is devoted solely to halachic observations pertaining to the Besamim Rosh. This section consists of various entries, culled by the Chida from his many diaries, to which were added notations pertaining to thoughts he had seen in the copy of Besamim Rosh that he had borrowed for a few days.

[The Chida was careful to note when he quoted from a borrowed sefer so that contemporaries could not criticize him for not citing a specific source from a volume he had himself quoted elsewhere; see for example והיטב“ :Shu”t Chayyim Sha’al, vol. 2, section 10 paragraph 1, to wit חרה לו דהיה לי להביא דברי ספר הכוונת… אך גר אנכי בארץ וכמה ספרים He was“= ”עיקריים אין בידי ואם חיי”ם שא”ל ספרא וספרי מקיים מצות השבה greatly upset that I did not cite Sefer HaKavanot… however I am but sojourner in this land and I lack many basic sefarim. Even when I did borrow a specific sefer, I was quick to return it”].

One entry in this section (#9:2) records the Chida’s enthusiastic and all ,(”היום נראה בעליל ספר בשמים ראש“) reception of the new sefer the entries show how various notations in the Chida’s writings were enhanced by his brief study of the sefer. The section concludes with the Chida’s measured remarks concerning the suspicion that had been raised in connection with this sefer:

הן בעודני קורא דרך ארעי בספר בשמים ראש הנזכר אחרי כתבי קצת פרטים שכתבתי לעיל שמעתי שיש מפקפקים בספר הזה כמו שכתבתי בקונטריס ועד לחכמים ריש מערכת בי”ת והנה צור”ף כי הספר הנזכר שאול הוא אתי לכן עמד קנה במקומו לעת הלום וה’ יצילנו משגיאות ויראנו מתורתו נפלאות כי”ר.

[During my perfunctory study of the aforementioned sefer Besamim Rosh, after I had written the few things previously mentioned, I heard that there are those who view this sefer with suspicion as I have written in my work Va’ad LeChachamim at the beginning of section Bet, which is appended to this work. As it was a borrowed sefer, I desisted from further study of it for now. May God protect us from blunders and may it be His will to reveal wondrous Torah insights to us]. This passage is revealing in that it demonstrates how the Chida’s writings were constructed. As mentioned earlier, the Chida only had the Besamim Rosh in his possession for a few days before desisting from studying it upon hearing the negative rumors surrounding the sefer. Nevertheless, in this short amount of time he had managed to write down several pages of novellae, as well as add various notations to existing entries in his diaries. Only after hearing the rumblings did he go back to add a cautionary note vis-à-vis the Besamim Rosh.

It is alluring to visualize the Chida sitting diligently at his desk with his notebooks open and pen in hand, variously writing and studying, studying and writing. The Chida describes his decision to לכן“ ,desist from further study of theBesamim Rosh with the phrase and so the pen stopped here”—likely a quite literal“= ”עמד קנה במקומו statement.

ואשמע“ ,The language in the aforementioned entry inVa’ad Lechachamim I subsequently heard,” also suggests that the two paragraphs“= ”אחרי were written at separate intervals. It seems that the first paragraph was written almost as soon as the Chida held the sefer in hand, and he quickly noted the bibliographical information in the manuscript of Va’ad LeChachamim that he was working on. Only later, upon hearing of the suspicions leveled against the sefer, did he go back and added the cautionary note. (I might add that I think it likely that the original entries pertaining to the Besamim Rosh contained some of the Chida’s customarily laudatory language, such as we find in Tov Ayin, but were later mildly edited for publication in light of the new findings).

Further evidence for the two stages in the Chida’s early reception of the Besamim Rosh can be adduced from an earlier entry for Mar Avraham Gaon in Va’ad LeChachamim, where the Chida first notes a responsum of Besamim Rosh pertinent to the discussion of using the biblical name of Yishma’el, and only in a later paragraph adds the disclaimer:

ואחרי כותבי יצאו עוררין על ספר זה כמו שכתבתי להלן במערכת בית ע”ש.

[After this writing, rumors were spread impugning this sefer as noted further in section Bet, see there]. The notebooks that were to become the Va’ad LeChachamim and the Tov Ayin were not the only volumes on the Chida’s desk at the time he conducted his survey of Besamim Rosh. He was simultaneously in the process of publishing his Nachal Kedumim, a running commentary on the Chumash culled from manuscript works of Rishonim along with his own observations, which appeared alongside the classicChumash commentaries in the five volume set ofTorah Ohr, in the years 1795-1797. In this work too, the Chida had occasion to reference the Besamim Rosh, though only in the addendum, Arvei Nachal. This was pursuant to his comments on Shemot (25:4) regarding the identity of the Chilazon from which the t’chelet dye was extracted for use in the construction of the Mishkan:

אחר זמן נדפסו שו”ת בשמים ראש ומשם הוכחתי בקונטריס טוב עין סי’ ט’ אות י”ב דחלזון הוא טהור ולפי”ז נחה שקטה האר”ש כל זמן שלא מצינו בדברי רז”ל להיפך.

[After some time, the responsa Besamim Rosh were published and from there I was able to prove in my compendiumTov Ayin, section 9 paragraph 12, that the Chilazon was a kosher species, and accordingly, the matter is settled as long as we don’t find any contradictory passage in the words of our sages of blessed memory].

Interestingly, here the Chida refers to what he had written in his Tov Ayin based on the Besamim Rosh, though this is already after the Chida became aware of the calumnies leveled against the Besamim Rosh, and he therefore adds the postscript that he is only relying on the Besamim Rosh as a proof text inasmuch as the conclusion drawn from this particular responsum is not contradicted by any Talmudic findings. It is instructive to contrast this position with his initial position regarding Besamim Rosh, displayed earlier in Tov Ayin (section 8) whereby the Chida exhorts his correspondent to follow the ruling of Besamim Rosh, as they are the words of the Rishonim.

One reference to Besamim Rosh in Tov Ayin (18:29), where the Chida highlights the finer points of his earlier discussion regarding the propriety of using the name Yishma’el, was similarly penned after the Chida had begun to view the sefer with suspicion, and he reiterates the disclaimer that he had made in Va’ad LeChachamim:

ועוד האריך בשו”ת בשמים ראש סימן י”ט ובתשובה לא חתים שמה דמארה עלה ואין לסמוך עליה, ומה גם שנשמע שערערו שהמעתיק תשובות אלו בתוגרמה הוסיף איזה דברים כמ”ש בקונטריס ועד לחכמים.

[This is elaborated on in the responsaBesamim Rosh section 19; however that particular responsum is unsigned and it cannot be relied upon – especially after hearing the rumors claiming that the copyist of these responsa in Turkey added some interpolations, as I have written in Va’ad LeChachamim].

Suspicion Raised by Anonymous Responsa

Throughout, it is apparent that the Chida’s main suspicion lay with those responsa that appear in Besamim Rosh anonymously. This concurs with the gist of the rumors that had reached the Chida, spelled out in the aforementioned entry in Va’ad LeChachamim and also mentioned briefly in Tov Ayin, namely, that an unnamed scribe in Turkey was responsible for inserting non-authentic responsa into his transcription of the original collection.

This brings us to the letter of defense of Besamim Rosh penned by R. Levin, and the Chida’s reaction to it. Though this letter was penned in 1794, it only reached the Chida’s attention after the 1796 publication of the first volume of Va’ad LeChachamim – though sometime before the 1798 publication of the second volume (a digital copy of which can be found here), for only in this second volume, does the Chida record his reception of this letter: בשמים ראש – עמ”ש בח”א, ואחר זמן ראיתי בדפוס דברי הגאון הגדול המפורסם ר”מ ואב”ד דק”ק ברלין יע”א מהר”ר צבי הירש נר”ו, אמר מר כי שמע מוציאי דבה על הס’ הנז’, והפיץ והדיח כל הדברים יגעים ואסהדתיה דרב כי הספר תמים כתיב ביה והיה עשר שנים בביתו טרם שנדפס ואהניא לן יק”ר סהדותא דפום בדת”א.

[Besamim Rosh – See what I wrote in volume one. After some time I saw a printed letter from the great and famous exemplary scholar, Chief Rabbi and Academy head of the holy community of Berlin, may G-d rebuild His city Amen, our esteemed teacher and rabbi R. Tzvi Hirsch, may G-d protect and keep him. Our master said that he heard of people spreading calumnies against the aforementioned sefer, and he shattered and discredited all the inane words. The rabbi testified regarding the integrity of the sefer which had been in his possession for ten years prior to its publication, and we were pleased with his testimony against the deceitful speech].

Mystery Phrase

At the end of this volume, in a section devoted to corrigenda entitled Shulchan BaMidbar, the Chida noted that two words should be added to .ותנן בבחירת”א :the concluding sentence of this entry However, the meaning of this rhetorical flourish is not entirely clear. In my aforementioned Yeshurun article, I suggested that these words be taken in context of the Chida’s generally strong aversion to controversy, and translated accordingly as “and it was therefore chosen for inclusion.”

Later, R. Betzalel Deblitzky wrote to me proposing that these words be understood as the Chida’s emphasis of his endorsement of R. Levin’s testimony, which he did by applying to it the same Talmudic phrase used to indicate that the Halacha is in accordance with those choice halachic testimonies recorded in Masechet Eduyot (cf. Rashi Kiddushin, end of 54b).

This reading, however, is not without difficulty. At the outset, if nothing essential has been added, it is hard to see why the Chida would trouble himself to add these two words in the corrigenda. Furthermore, in an addendum to what was to be the Chida’s final publication, his Mar’it Ha’Ayin, in a parallel passage to this one in Va’ad LeChachamim 2, the Chida writes:

ועתה אמת אגיד כי בקונטריס ועד לחכמים, ושם בטוב עין כתבתי דיצאו עוררין על ספר בשמים ראש, ע”ש, ואחר זמן ראיתי פתקא אחת שהדפיס הגאון מוהר”ר הירש אב”ד דק”ק ברלין להפיץ ולהדיח מה שערערו על הס’ הנזכר, והעיד שהס’ הנזכר הוא אמיתי ולא חלו בו ידים כלל, והוא היודע ועד, ועוד האריך בזה. ובודאי דסמכינן אהימנותיה ואהניא לן אסהדתיה.

[And now, I must tell you the truth; previously I had written in the compendium Va’ad LeChachamim, and in that same volume, in Tov Ayin, that rumors were spread impugning the sefer Besamim Rosh – see what I wrote there. Yet, after a while I saw a single flyer printed by the exemplary scholar, our esteemed teacher and rabbi R. Hirsch, Chief Rabbi of the holy community of Berlin, in order to shatter and discredit the rumors impugning the aforementioned sefer, and in it he testified that the aforementioned sefer is authentic and has not been tampered with at all, saying that he knows this to be true firsthand; and he elaborated in this vein. We should certainly rely on his trustworthiness, and I was pleased with his testimony].

It is instructive to note the similarity in language in these two parallel passages. It would appear that one of these passages actually served as the basis for the other. The fact that the Chida in this Mar’it Ha’Ayin passage only refers to the first volume ofVa’ad LeChachamim and not to the updated entry in Volume Two, is a strong indication that this particular passage had been penned before the 1798 publication of Volume Two, in which case it is more than likely that the Chida copied the gist of this paragraph into his final draft of Volume Two as he readied it for publication. This possibility is further bolstered by the observation that the Chida’s language in this passage indicates that this is his first telling of his about-face on the Besamim Rosh on account of R. Levin’s bulletin.

The upshot of this is that in view of the source for the entry in in the ותנן בבחירת”א Va’ad LeChachamim, the addition of the two words corrigenda, which do not appear in the original source, does not appear to serve the purpose of emphasis alone. More likely, those two words serve a purpose germane to the context in which they appear, namely as an apologetic for the inclusion of the Besamim Rosh entry in the Chida’s sefer.

My final objection to this reading is based on my understanding of the Chida’s rhetorical melitzah style. This reading would have it that the here is borrowed from its Talmudic context, with ותנן בבחירת”א term the intent to draw a parallel from its usage there. I feel this reading is more typical of the Ashkenazicmelitzah of Chida’s contemporaries – such as the celebrated R. Ya’akov Emden – who would throw around Talmudic and biblical phrases in loose context just to emphasize a point connected to the meaning of the phrase in its original context. In this sort ofmelitzah , one cannot fully comprehend the import of the words without knowledge of their meaning in the original, though oftentimes the message of the passage is abundantly clear on its own.

The Chida’s Sephardic melitza, however was of a rather different sort. In his melitzah, the words from the fragmented biblical or talmudical quotation – applied with little regard to proper syntax and grammar – are intended to take the place of words with similar meaning, and must be read with the sentence in order to make sense. As such, it would be expected that these two words are to be understood as saying something distinct and are not just intended to add fuel to the fire. which he invariably does ,בבחירת”א In this case, the Chida hyphenated in order to highlight that the word is being used in a different manner, or with a different spelling, than in its original context. here is not a reference to the בבחירת”א This leads me to believe that is the name given to the בחירתא Talmudic use of the phrase in which collection of choice testimonies in Masechet Eduyot, but is rather in including the (בחירה) used here as to indicate the Chida’s choice entry in his bibliographical compendium.

Unequivocal Acceptance

It may also refer to the Chida’s general acceptance of the sefer, as from this point forward, the Chida freely references the sefer without adding any note of reservation, such as in his Kisse Rachamim (Livorno 1803, Soferim, Tosefot, 1:9). Especially noteworthy is the citation in his 1798 publication Shu”T Yosef Ometz (section 11) where for the third time the discussion is raised about the permissibility of using names such as Yishma’el. While in the first two discussions cited earlier, the mention of the responsum in Besamim Rosh prompted the Chida’s subsequent disclaimer, here the mention of this responsum is stated with equanimity.

Despite the ambiguity of this particular addendum, it is clear that the Chida relied completely on R. Levin’s letter and that, in his mind, the sefer was now clear of all suspicion. Yet, one question remains. If, as the Chida stated in the Besamim Rosh entry in Va’ad LeChachamim, the suspicions concerned additions to the manuscript by an unknown scribe while still in Turkey—that is before reaching the hands of the publisher in Berlin, R. Saul Berlin, and his father, R. Hirsch Levin—how would R. Levin’s testimony to the integrity of the manuscript allay these suspicions? After all, R. Levin’s manuscript was based on the one which contained these alleged interpolations! (An editorial footnote to my article points out that this question already bothered the author of Dikdukei Soferim in his glosses to Shem Hagedolim).

In my Yeshurun article, I posited that the Chida deliberately concealed the real suspicions surrounding the sefer, namely that R. Saul himself was responsible for the fraudulent interpolations in Besamim Rosh, and out of respect for R. Saul’s father, the Chida instead blamed these insertions on some anonymous copyist in Turkey. Later, I saw that R. Matisyahu Shtrashun had already reached a similar conclusion in his notes to Sh. Y. Fuenn’sKiryah Ne’emanah (Vilna 1915, p. 47-48).

An observation noted in the new edition of Shem HaGedolim by Machon HaMa’or may lend weight to this interpretation; nowhere in all the entries pertaining to this sefer does the Chida so much as mention the name of the publisher R. Saul Berlin. This is all the more conspicuous after the Chida mentions that the notes, Kasa DeHarsena, were appended to the sefer, without mentioning the author of these notes, R. Saul Berlin himself.

On the surface, this may indeed be indicative of the Chida’s holding of R. Saul in contempt for his role in the forgery. Yet, as noted in the same Yeshurun article, the Chida rarely cites his contemporaries in his Shem HaGedolim, and little can be deduced from the omission of R. Saul’s name. This is particularly true in light of the fact that previously, in his 1785 Machazik Beracha, and his 1790 Petach Eynayim, the Chida responded to critical glosses penned by the same R. Saul Berlin on the Chida’s Birkei Yoseph on Yoreh De’ah, and when referring to these glosses, the Chida does not name the author, whom he and refers to him only ,(גברא רבא) ’describes as ‘a formidable scholar as ‘the German Rabbi’ (see R. Reuven Margalios article inAreshet , Jerusalem 1944, pp. 414-417, and R. Ya’akov Chaim Sofer,Menuchat Shalom, vol. 8 p. 229). Similarly, when the Chida refers in his Shu”T Yosef Ometz (section 7), to something R. Saul wrote in Kasa DeHarsena, he refers only to the sefer but does not mention the author by name.

Furthermore, we have already seen how the Chida reiterates the claim about the errant Turkish copyist in his Tov Ayin, itself an indication that this is an accurate description of the claim countered by the Chida. As previously indicated, this passage underscores that the Chida was not worried about forgery as much as unworthy interpolation; he was therefore only concerned about an unattributed and unsigned responsum.

In the Final Analysis…

I now think that the Chida’s report of interpolations by an unnamed Turkish copyist should be taken at face value. Though the Chida’s language indicates that the complaints leveled against theBesamim Rosh were mere hearsay (as opposed to R. Levin’s defense which the Chida stresses he saw in print), and we cannot specifically identify the source of the rumors that reached his ears, we do know that similar rumors did indeed abound. Take for instance this quote from one of the leading antagonists, R. Mordechai Benet, in his Parashat Mordechai (section 5, page 8): ‘He amassed a heap of untoward sources,’ and compare also this selection from R. Levin’s letter in response to the accusations:

כי מצאו בתוך הבשמים חלבנה, והדברים לא יצאו מפי המחברים אשר נקרא שמם עליהם כי דבר בליעל יצוק בו להדיח עם ה’ מעל אלהיהם.

[They claimed to have found foul-smelling Galbanum among the Besamim incense, and that the essays are misattributed to the authors whose names they bear, for malicious content has been added in to cause Hashem’s nation to stray from their God].

Though R. Levin’s description of the charges does include the charge of forgery, it still does not name R. Saul as the culprit, and it may indicate the presence of rumors that accused him of negligence in publishing a work that contained forged and misattributed material, while stopping short of accusing him of actually perpetrating the forgery. It should be pointed out that from a historical perspective, the notion that a rabbinic work could be a complete forgery was such an outlandish proposition at that time that even the detractors wouldn’t openly make such a claim. It would be almost a hundred years before someone like R. Matisyahu Shtrashun would seriously consider the possibility that the entire work was the brainchild of R. Saul alone, and even after that we still find the likes of the great R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk insisting that the Besamim Rosh does contain legitimate Rishonaic responsa (see Chiddushei R. Meir Simcha, vol. 2, p. 372).

As such, we should understand that the Chida accepted R. Levin’s defense of the Besamim Rosh more as vouching for the content of the sefer, and less as attesting to his son’s innocence. Contrast this with the comments of the author of Dikdukei Soferim and R. Matisyahu Shtrashun (cf. the earlier citations to their respective comments), who both wondered how the Chida could rely on R. Levin’s testimony and ignore a father’s obvious partiality towards his son. Obviously, whereas they took R. Levin’s missive as an argument in support of his son, the Chida took it as a vindication of the sefer itself.

The Chida’s reading is in fact borne out by the bulk of R. Levin’s circular (which R. Matisyahu Shtrashun admits he had not actually seen) in which R. Levin asserts that that the presence of some strange content in a sefer should by no means disqualify it, as the same can be said of many sefarim, and it is wrong to characterize a sefer on the basis of a few anomalous statements (“for this is typical of [Jewish] apostates, they collect what appears to them as strange Aggadot and unjust laws, and they then slant them in a way that will incite hatred and animosity towards us”). In any case, he adds, when taken in context these passages can often be explained in a satisfactory manner. The Chida thus appeals to R. Levin’s authority and esteem, and after reading R. Levin’s strenuous claim for the veracity and integrity of the content ofBesamim Rosh, the Chida readily accepted his testimony, and discounted the false rumors without equivocation.

Ironically, though R. Matisyahu Shtrashun has all but discounted the Chida’s reliance on the testimony of R. Levin, my reading of the Chida actually anticipates R. Shtrashun’s own opinion of the sefer. R. Shtrashun concludes his brief survey of the reception of Besamim Rosh with the following remarks:

ואחרי כל אלה יש להעיר כי אף אם נחליט שכל הספר מראשיתו ועד אחריתו מעשי ידי ר’ שאול הנהו, לא נוכל לדחותו כלאחר יד חלילה, ואחרי אשר נסיר ממנו איזה דברים שנפש היפה סולדת בהם (אשר אמנם גם שם נשאר מקום רחב ידים להפוך בזכותו) הנהו מלא תורה כרמון וריח בשמיו נודף כאפרסמון בלול בחריפות ובקיאות, מחברו חותר ומעמיק בפלפול ישר בדברי הש”ס ובדברי הראשונים והאחרונים כאחד ממיוחדי גאוני זמנו.

[Having said all this, it is worth noting that even if we were to conclude that the entire sefer from beginning to end is but the handiwork of R. Saul, we still cannot discount it out of hand. For once we remove some of the more objectionable content (although there is actually ample ground to find justification even for this content), we will find it be full of excellent Torah insight, replete with ingenuity and proficiency. The author utilizes sound sophistry in developing his penetrating arguments from the Talmud and the works of Rishonim and Acharonim, like one of the special exemplary scholars of his time].

R. Shtrashun, like most of the others who dealt with the subject, was primarily concerned with the question of the sefer’s authorship, and indeed in this regard the jury has come out strongly on the side of those who claim R. Saul produced this volume on his own. Yet, as demonstrated above, the Chida’s main interest in the provenance of the sefer was to ascertain the reliability of its content. As such, the Chida was delighted with R. Levin’syikar sahaduta – esteemed testimony, who concluded, much as R. Shtrashun was later to write, that despite some of its questionable content – for which a justifiable argument could be made in any case – the sefer on the whole was full of valuable content, and all reports to the contrary were but pum bidatta – salacious rumors.

Taken this way, R. Levin’s appraisal, enthusiastically received by the Chida, and echoed in the assessment of R. Shtrashun, may yet stand the test of time.

Post-Mosaic Additions to the Torah?

Post-Mosaic Additions to the Torah?

Marc B. Shapiro

In his post here, Ben Zion Katz deals with medieval rabbinic views regarding post-Mosaic additions to the Torah. Katz refers to The Limits of Orthodox Theology, and I have mentioned many additional sources in Seforim Blog posts. (A couple of people have commented that in a few recent publications on this topic it seems that the authors used my writings without any acknowledgment. I would only say that I don’t have a copyright on any sources. Once I discuss the sources publicly, then anyone is free to make use of them. It would, however, be appropriate for these authors to at least mention my book and posts if that is how they learned of these sources.)

In Limits, pp 109-110, I mention that the Tosafist R. Avigdor Katz cites interpretations found in R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary to the Torah both with regard to post-Mosaic additions to the Torah and about material being removed from the Torah and placed in the book of Psalms. (While R. Avigdor only refers to one chapter [Psalm 136] being removed from the Torah, R. Judah he-Hasid speaks of this and all other anonymous Psalms written by Moses.) R. Avigdor does not mention R. Judah he-Hasid, and regarding the removal of the chapter from the Torah and placing it in the book of Psalms, before citing this interpretation he states, “I have heard.” Thus, I think it is fair to say that the “critical” interpretations he mentions were “in the air.”

H. J. Zimmels published the two passages from R. Avigdor just mentioned,[1] but there is another comment that appears as a note to R. Avigdor’s manuscript. It has recently been published by Miriam Weitman,[2] and states:

וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה פי‘ לא על יעקב אמ‘, אל‘ משה רבינ‘ שם ראש דגל אפרי‘ לפני מנשה בעבור שיעקב אמ‘ ואחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו, ויהושע או אנשי כנסת הגדול‘ כתבו, דאי משה כתבו אם היה לו [צ“ל היה לו לומר] אני שמתי כמו שאומ‘ אחרכ‘ ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך

This interpretation, speaking of a post-Mosaic addition to the Torah, is also found in R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary.

In a previous post, available here, I mentioned R. Shlomo Fisher’s rejection of R. Moshe Feinstein’s view that R. Judah he-Hasid’s “biblical criticism” is a forgery. As R. Fisher put it, R. Moshe assumed that R. Judah he-Hasid has to accept Maimonides’ Principles, but that is not the case, and when it comes to the issue of complete Mosaic authorship, R. Judah he- Hasid disagrees with Maimonides. R. Uri Sherki has apparently also discussed this matter with R. Fisher, as he cites R. Fisher as stating that the issue of whether post-Mosaic additions are religiously objectionable is a dispute between the medieval Ashkenazic and Sephardic sages. See here. What this means is that in medieval Ashkenaz it was not regarded as heretical to posit post-Mosaic additions, while the opposite was the case in the Sephardic world (and this would explain why Ibn Ezra could only hint to his view). I am skeptical of this point, particularly because Ibn Ezra’s secrets are, in fact, explained openly by people who lived in the Sephardic world.[3] Yet Haym Soloveitchik has also recently made same point, and pointed to differences between Jews living in the Christian and Muslim worlds. His argument is that since medieval Ashkenazic Jews were not confronted with a theological challenge of the sort Jews had to deal with in the Islamic world, where Jews were accused of altering the text of the Pentateuch, there was no assumption in medieval Ashkenazic Europe that belief in what we know as Maimonides’ Eighth Principle was a binding doctrine of faith.

Here is some of what Soloveitchik writes (the emphasis does not appear in the original):

One tanna had stated, simply and with no ado, that the last eight verses were of Divine origin but not of Mosaic authorship, and R. Yehudah he-Hasid added that there were several more verses that were not penned by Moses. Was such a position seen as being thoroughly mistaken? Most probably. Was it viewed as odd and non-conformist? Undoubtedly; though hardly more eccentric than R. Yehudah’s view that King David, to flesh out his book of Psalms, lifted from the text of the “original” Pentateuch many anonymous “psalms” that Moses had penned! Were these strange and misguided views, however, perceived as being in any way heretical or even dangerous? At that time and place, certainly not. They contained no concession to the surrounding culture, opened no Pandora’s Box of questions. Indeed, one can take the religious temperature of R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s explanation by the matter of fact way European medieval commentators (rishonim) treated the passages in Menahot and Bava Batra where the tannaitic dictum of Joshua’s authorship is brought.[4] In their world, these words did not abut any slippery slope of a “documentary hypothesis” or of “Jewish forgery”. No need, therefore, to reinterpret this passage or to forfend any untoward implications. What concerned R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s contemporaries, the Tosafists, in this statement were its practical halakhic implications for the Sabbath Torah readings, not its theological or dogmatic ones, for to them, as to R. Yehudah, there were none.[5]

One of the biggest theological changes in Orthodoxy in the last decades—perhaps the sources collected inLimits were significant in this regard—is the acknowledgment that asserting limited post-Mosaic additions to the Torah is not to be regarded as heretical.[6] In Limits and subsequent blog posts I have recorded around thirty- five rishonim and aharonim who claim that Ibn Ezra believed in post-Mosaic additions. When you throw in R. Judah he-Hasid, R. Avigdor Katz, R. Menahem Tziyoni, and other sources I referred to in Limits, it is hard to convince people this is a heretical position, despite what Maimonides’ Eighth Principle states. It is also hard to convince them that this matter has been “decided” in accordance with Maimonides’ view. R. Mordechai Breuer states flatly that the legitimacy of Ibn Ezra’s opinion cannot be denied.[7]

אין אני יודע, אם רוח חכמים נוחה מהדברים האלה. מכל מקום הם יצאו מפי אבן עזרא, ושוב לא נוכל לשלול את הלגיטימיות שלהם

Yet fifty years ago, speaking about these opinions would have been regarded as incredibly controversial, if not heretical in many eyes. Today, it seems like it is no big deal, and I have in mind not just Modern Orthodox circles but in the intellectual haredi world as well. It is significant that it its affirmation of Torah mi-Sinai, the Rabbinical Council of America did not deny the existence of views that speak of small additions to the Torah, but instead noted the great difference between these views and modern critical approaches. Here is the relevant paragraph (the entire statement can be seen here).

When critical approaches to the Torah’s authorship first arose, every Orthodox rabbinic figure recognized that they strike at the heart of the classical Jewish faith. Whatever weight one assigns to a small number of remarks by medieval figures regarding the later addition of a few scattered phrases, there is a chasm between them and the position that large swaths of the Torah were written later – all the more so when that position asserts that virtually the entire Torah was written by several authors who, in their ignorance, regularly provided erroneous information and generated genuine, irreconcilable contradictions. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, none of the above mentioned figures would have regarded such a position as falling within the framework of authentic Judaism

Without getting into the content of this statement which I believe is generally correct,[8] what is important for our purposes is that I do not believe such a statement would have been issued even fifty years ago, as it acknowledges the existence of “remarks by medieval figures” that are at odds with Maimonides’ Eighth Principle.[9]

What are we to make of the approach to Torah mi-Sinai in R. Judah he-Hasid’s “school”? Weitman suggests a few possibilities, one of which is that they believed in the existence of a “continuing revelation,” namely, that the Torah continued to be revealed even after the initial revelation to Moses. This would be an extension of the talmudic view that the last eight verses of the Torah were written by Joshua. While some might find this approach quite provocative, I think it is actually the meaning not just of R. Judah’s “school” but of Ibn Ezra and pretty much everyone who believed in intentional post-Mosaic additions. That is, they believed that these were added by prophets, as they would have regarded as completely unacceptable, indeed heretical, the notion that the Torah contains non-prophetic verses.

One of the most important sources in this matter is R. Judah he-Hasid, as he is a universally recognized rishon who pointed to post-Mosaic additions. Not surprisingly, his opinion is often quoted, and the censorship of his commentary has also been widely discussed. R. Judah he-Hasid’s words have been read in the exact same way by the greatest Torah scholars as well as the greatest academic scholars, and yet, what if everyone is mistaken? This is the claim of Eran Viezel, who in a recent article has argued that the passages in R. Judah he- Hasid’s commentary that point to post-Mosaic additions were actually written by R. Judah he-Hasid’s son, R. Moses Zaltman, a figure who does not have the religious authority of his famous father.[10] Since Viezel feels that he has removed the veil of “Bible critic” from R. Judah he-Hasid, he also wonders if R. Moses, and not R. Judah he-Hasid, should be identified as the source of the claim that texts were removed from the Pentateuch and placed in the Psalms. In this case, however, he acknowledges that there is no evidence to support his suggestion.

I have gone through Viezel’s arguments, and while I agree that it seems that R. Moses is the author of the “critical” comment to Leviticus 2:13, I don’t see this when it comes to the other passages. More importantly, none of the scholars I have consulted in this matter accept Viezel’s argument, so I don’t think we need to revise all the discussions about R. Judah he- Hasid and substitute his son, R. Moses. I would also add that it is precisely the other two passages in R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary that speak of post-Mosaic additions, as well as the passage that speaks of Psalms being removed from the Torah, that appear as well in R. Avigdor Katz’s commentary (with the difference noted above that R. Avigdor only speaks of one Psalm having been removed). In other words, what we have here is not some radical individual view advocated by R. Moses, but a position that was shared by others and no doubt well known.

It is noteworthy that while earlier editions of Otzar haChochma included the censored version of R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary, the current edition includes the uncensored text. Otzar haChochma is careful not to include anything heretical on its site, so this can be seen as a “koshering,” as it were, of the uncensored commentary of R. Judah he-Hasid. Also significant is that in the new Otzar ha-Rishonim on Torah, two of the four “critical” comments in R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary are included (Lev. 2:13, Deut. 2:8). Here is the page that includes the commentary to Deuteronomy 2:8. As far as I know, no one has placed the Otzar ha-Rishonim in herem for including R. Judah he-Hasid’s comments.

There is one other thing that is noteworthy about this edition of the Humash. Here is a page where you can see something called Targum Yerushalmi ha-Shalem.

This is not found in the regular Mikraot Gedolot Humash. There you only have a fragmentary Targum Yerushalmi. In academic circles, the complete Targum Yerushalmi is known as Targum Neofiti, and it was only discovered in 1949. You can read about it in Wikipedia here. The Wikipedia entry states that Neofiti is “the most important of the Palestinian Targumim, as it is by far the most complete of the Western Targumim and perhaps the earliest as well.”[11]

Returning to Viezel, I want to now offer some valuable information which in my opinion not only shows that Viezel’s argument is lacking, but is significant in its own right. From this point on, when speaking of important medieval Ashkenazic sages who believed that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Torah, in addition to R. Judah he-Hasid and R. Avigdor Katz, we have to add R. Judah he-Hasid’s student, the great R. Elazar of Worms. This at least is Amos Geula’s identification of the author of an unpublished medieval commentary on the Torah, and for the purposes of this post I will assume Geula is correct.[12]

In his commentary to Genesis 36:1, R. Elazar writes:[13]

ואלה המלכים [בראשית לו, לא] לפי הפשט עזרא כתב ואלה המלכים עד שאול. או משה כתבו ברוח הקדש, כבלעם שכתב מעשה אגג ומשיח . . . לפני מלוך מלך בישר[אל] אילו המלכים מלכו קודם שאול המלך כי כשהומלך שאול הכניע אדום כי נלחם באדום ובעמלק עד זמן יהורם שכת‘ ומלך אין באדום נצב מלך [מל“א כב, ]מח . . . ואלה שמות אלופי (אדום) [עשו] [בר, לו, מ) מזמן שאול עד יהורם

אלה המלכיםהמלכים היו קודם האלופים שהרי מנה אותם תחילה. אלופים [מלכים] אילו קודם שמלך דוד שנ‘ לפני מלוך מלך לבני ישר[ואיןאל] לך לומר לפני משה שהרי לא מצינו שמלך משה. ואין לומר ויהי בישורון מלך [דב‘ לג,ה) משה

R. Elazar explains that according to thepeshat , Genesis 36:31-39, which gives the list of kings “that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” was written by Ezra. He offers another suggestion that Moses wrote this prophetically, but as you can see from the rest of his comment, this is not the approach he adopts, as he assumes that these verses, as well as Genesis 36:40-43, are post-Mosaic.

This interpretation is already found in R. Judah he-Hasid and R. Avigdor Katz, who think that these verses were written in the days of Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah. According to a medieval Tosafist collection of Torah commentaries, this view was also held by R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam).[14] It is thus obvious that this was a common interpretation in medieval Ashkenaz, and as more medieval manuscripts are published we will no doubt find more such “critical” interpretations.

As Geula notes, in the published version of R. Elazar Rokeah’s commentary on the Torah,[15] which was apparently written not by him but by one of his students,[16] we also find the view that Genesis 36:40-43, in addition to Genesis 36: 31-39, are post-Mosaic.

הרי אילו י“א אלופים היו בימי ח‘ מלכי ישראל לכן נקרא אלוף תמנע כי מנעו מהם, מלך אין באדום נצב מלך (מלכים א כב, מח) כנגדם העמידו ישראל אי“ שפטים יהושע עד שמואל, ובימי השפטים העמידו מלכים באדום

From all we have seen of how members of this “school” explained this chapter of Genesis, it is clear that this commentary does not mean that the names of the chiefs or the kings were written prophetically.

Another comment from R. Elazar pointing to a post-Mosaic addition is on Genesis 47:26: “And Joseph made it a statute concerning the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth.” This refers to the produce given in Egypt to the Pharaoh. But what do the words “unto this day” mean? R. Elazar sees these words as a post-Mosaic addition.[17]

ושם אתה יוסף לחוק .למשפטעד היום הזה עד שהגלה נבוכד נצר [!] ובימי משה שכתב את התורה עדיין היה חוק On this verse, R. Menahem ben Solomon (12th century), in his Midrash Sekhel Tov,[18] writes:

עד היום הזה אלו דברי הסדרן

Geula understands the “sadran” to be a post-Mosaic author, and at first glance this would seem to make the most sense. However, Richard C. Steiner has studied the use of the term “sadran” in various medieval works, and he believes that it could also be used with reference to Moses.[19]

Returning to R. Elazar of Worms’ commentary, we find something interesting in the manuscript, although we have no way of knowing what the original text was.[20] The copyist wrote:

וכתב שדהובמשנה תורה [דב‘ ה, יח] לפי שכבר סמוך שייכנסו לארץ [וי]היה להם שדות

However, this was corrected to read:

לפי שכבר נכנסו לארץ והיה להם שדות

The question is why in the version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:18, in the commandment against coveting, does it include coveting your neighbor’s field while this point is missing from the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:13. According was שדהוto the second reading in the manuscript, the word added after the Israelites entered the Land of Israel. Geula rightly asks, was this a “correction” of a reader of the manuscript, or was he returning the text to its original form?

With all the evidence that we now have, and as mentioned more will no doubt be forthcoming as additional manuscripts are published, it is clear that the viewpoint that there are limited post-Mosaic additions in the Torah was considered acceptable in medieval Ashkenaz (and thus it is hard to see how it can be regarded as an unacceptable view today[21]).

Regarding R. Judah he-Hasid, the following is also worth noting. Here is his commentary to Deuteronomy 2:8. In the middle we see the following words:

שהוא נמצא כמו מרשיילא או פנדייא שעוברים דרך שם לעכבו כך לא היו יכולין לילך אחר הזהב אם לא היו באין לעציון גבר מתחילה mean? Viezel translates as follows: “For it לעכבו What does was located like Marseille or Pontoise [place names], as a way station en route [to the gold] so that they were not able to go after the gold unless they came to Etzion Geber first.” as Pontoise must be correct, and פנדייא His identification of) in medieval times Pointoise was an important commercial center.)

Zev Farber in his article here translates the passage as follows: “For it is situated like Marseilles or Pandaya[22] such that people must pass through there to stop in, so that they could not get to the gold if they did not stop first in Etzion-geber.”

I have underlined the words that Viezel and Farber use as Yet both of them overlooked what I .לעכבו translations of pointed out in Limits, p. 109 n. 136, that the parallel text is a לעכבוof R. Avigdor Katz allows us to see that the word to Acre”, which for“ ,לעכו mistake and it should actually read almost two hundred years was part of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.[23] Now the passage makes perfect sense.

Let me make three final comments about the text of the Torah.

A. In Limits I discussed those who understandTikkun Soferim literally. To the list of the authorities I mention, we can add R. Pesah Finfer,[24] R. Isidore Epstein, and R. Joseph Messas.

R. Finfer was a dayan in Vilna and considered the expert on masoretic matters in Lithuania.[25] In his Masoret ha-Torah ve-ha-Nevi’im (Vilna, 1906), p. 6, he writes: ראוי הי‘ עזרא שתנתן התורה על ידו . . . והוא ונחמי‘ עשו תיקון סופרים וכינויי סופרים.

R. Epstein, Judaism (Baltimore, 1959), pp. 195-196, writes:

The spiritualization of the conception of God is reflected already in certain changes known Tikkuneas Soferim (Corrections of the Scribes), which, ascribed to Ezra, were introduced into the Biblical text in order to tone down certain anthropomorphic expressions.

R. Messas, Minhat Yosef (Jerusalem, 2012), vol. 4, p. 40, writes:

וזה אחד מתקוני סופרים בתורה לכנוי ולתקון לשון עכ”ל. ענין זה מפורש בתנחומא פרשת בשלח על הכתוב וברוב גאונך, ובעץ יוסף שם, ובערוך ערך כבד . . . והעולה מכלם הוא, כי בי”ח מקומות בתנ”ך תקנו הסופרים שהם אנשי כנה”ג איזה תקונים בהם

B. One of the greatest Moroccan rabbis of the last two hundred who , המלאךyears was R. Raphael Berdugo (1747-1821), known as wrote important responsa and biblical and talmudic commentaries. In his Mesamhei Lev on Joshua, chapter 5, R. Berdugo calls attention to verse 12 which shows us that even after entering the Land of Canaan, the Israelites were still fed for a time with manna. “And the manna ceased on the morrow, after they had eaten of the produce of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.”

R. Berdugo points out that Exodus 16:35 states: “And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.” The problem is obvious. The verse in Exodus is written from the perspective of when the Israelites were no longer eating the manna, yet we see from the book of Joshua that they continued eating the manna even after Moses’ death. So who wrote the verse in Exodus?

R. Berdugo acknowledges that one can say that it was prophetically written by Moses. Yet he doesn’t think that this makes sense, namely, to write a verse prophetically so that it appears to be written about an event that happened in the past. Therefore, he says that Joshua wrote the verse. It seems that that this does not raise any theological issues for him, and he compares it to the dispute about the last eight verses in the Torah where one tanna holds that Joshua wrote these verses because they refer to events after Moses’ death. Here, too, R. Berdugo states that since the verse refers to something that took place after Moses’ death, it makes sense to say that it was written by Joshua.[26]

ויאכלו מעבור הארץ ולא היה עוד לבני ישראל מן וגו‘, משמע שאחר שבאו לארץ כנען היו אוכלים מן. ומש“ בתורה את המן אכלו עד בואם אל קצה ארץ כנען הוא סמוך ליריחו אחר מות מרע“ה, וא“כ צ“ע מי כתב אותו פסוק בתורה, ואף כי אין מעצור לומר כי מרע“ה כתב זה ברוח קדשו ידע העתידות ושישראל יאכלו המן אחר מותו מכל מקום לשכל קשה זה שוכ“ שיאמר אותם בלשון שכבר נעשו, ולכן העיקר שיהושע כתבו אחרי מות מרע“ה, וכן מצאנו שנחלקו רז“ל בפסוק וימת שם, שר‘ יוסי אמר שיהושע כתבו וכו‘.

Also of interest is R. Berdugo’s comment to Deuteronomy 34:10, where in speaking about verses at the end of the Torah written rather כותבי התורהafter Moses’ death, he attributes them to than just to Joshua.[27]

C. In the very interesting book, Derekh Sihah, which records conversations with R. Hayyim Kanievsky, the following questions and answers appear (vol. 1, pp. 323- 324):

שאלה: באור החיים הק‘ (ל“ד, כ“ט) כתב ממדרש שקרני ההוד נעשו ע“י שיור הדיו שנתן על ראשו, והכוונה כי משה מרוב ענוה לא כתב והאיש משה עניו עם יו“ד, ולכן נשאר דיו, וזה פלא וכי כתב איך שירצה, הרי כל אות היתה בנבואה

תשובה: כיוצא בזה כתב בעל הטורים (ריש ספר ויקרא) שכתוב אלף זעירא, כי רצה משה לכתוב “ויקר“, אמר לו הקב“ה כתוב עם אל“ף, אבל מ“מ כתב אותה בזעירא. וכנראה שזה לא נמסר לו איך לכתוב.

שאלה: שאלתי להרב שליט“א עד דברי ה“אור החיים” הק‘ שכתב כי קרני הוד של משה משיירי קולמוס, שהיה צריך לכתוב “עניו” עם יו“ד, וכתב בלא יו“ד, וכי זה נתון לדעתו? ואמר הרב שלא אמרו לו כיצד לכתוב, וחזינן שאמרו רק התוכן, וגם כאן כן הוא.

תשובה: שם זה היה על התיבה הזאת בלבד שלא אמרו לו איך לכתוב, אבל פעם שאלתי מהג“ר גדליה נדל שליט“א שרואים בחז“ל טענות על נביאים כיצד אמרו בלשון מסויים, כגון במסכת פסחים (ס“ו, ב‘) כל המתייהר אם נביא וכו‘ מדבורה דכתיב חדלו וכו‘, וזה היה בנבואה, וכן במסכת מגילה י“ד, ב‘ “כרכושתא כתיב בה אמרו לאיש ולא אמרה אמרו למלך“, ושם מלכים (ב‘ כ“ב, ט“ו) כתוב כה אמר ה‘, חזינן מזה שיש פעמים שהשאירו הבחירה ביד הנביא אלו תיבות לומר

R. Kanievsky states that Moses on his own decided to leave out in Numbers 12:3. R. Kanievsky supports ענו the yud in the word this position with the comment of theBaal ha-Turim on Leviticus 1:1 who states that Moses on his own wrote the in small print. (I did not cite ויקרא final aleph in the word this comment of Ba’al ha-Turim in Limits, as I don’t see it as in opposition to Maimonides’ Eighth Principle. The Principle speaks of the letters of the Torah themselves, not whether they are regular size or small.[28])

Despite the citation of Ba’al ha-Turim, I am sure that some will regard R. Kanievsky’s position as inappropriate, or even in opposition to the Eighth Principle which states that the entire Torah found in our hands is of divine origin, for R. Kanievsky states that Moses had the authority to determine if should be written with ayud or not.[29] It is ענו the word true that in the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:8, Maimonides defines a heretic as “One who says that the Torah, even one verse or one word, is not from God.” Maimonides here does not include one who says that a single letter is not from God. However, in the Eighth Principle he does not make such a distinction. Presumably, R. Kanievsky would say that the words of the Eighth Principle must be understood in line with what appears in the Mishneh Torah. Nevertheless, it is significant that R. Kanievsky regards as theologically legitimate the notion that Moses independently determined how a word in the Torah should be written, as the standard view is that all such matters were determined by divine command.

R. Kanievsky further supports his position with a striking insight. He points to Pesahim 66b and Megillah 14b where statements of Deborah and Hulda are criticized by the Sages for being boastful. Yet both these statements are actually part of a prophecy, so how could the Sages find problems with these words if they came from God? R. Kanievsky concludes from this that while the prophetic message comes from God, there are times when the actual words originate in the prophet’s mind, and this explains how the Sages can regard these words as problematic. Although Moses’ prophetic level was above that of all other prophets, R. Kanievsky believes that on at least one occasion Moses was allowed to choose how a word in the Torah was written.

***********

My Torah in Motion classes are now being placed on Youtube. Those who are interested can view them here.

***********

[1] Abhandlungen zur Erinnerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes (Vienna, 1933), pp. 259, 261. [2] “Hedei Parshanuto shel Rabbi Yehudah he-Hasid be-Kitvei Talmidav – Hemshekh Mul Tzimtzum,” Megadim 55 (2014), p. p. 77. [3] In Limits and subsequent blog posts I listed numerous rishonim and aharonim who understood Ibn Ezra’s hints to mean that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Torah. Here is another important text, a comment by Tosafot (Tosafot ha-Shalem, ed. Gellis, to Gen. 12:6 [p. 14]: והכנעני אז בארץ . . . ואם איננו כן יש לו סוד, כי כוונתו שזה לא כתבו משה אך נכתב אחר שנכבשה, וכן דעתו בהרבה פסוקים

Tosafot rejects this opinion, stating:

ואנחנו לא ניאות בזה הדעת שכל התורה כתבה משה מפי ה’ בלא חילוק ושנוי

It is significant that Tosafot does not refer to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation as heretical. For another source that assumes that Ibn Ezra believed that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Torah, see R. Aharon Friedman,Be-Har ha-Shem Yeraeh (Kerem be-Yavneh, 2009), p. 30. [4] I am aware of no evidence that the rishonim in the Islamic world interpreted these passages in a fundamentally different way than the Ashkenazic rishonim. As noted in Limits, pp. 104-105, R. Joseph Ibn Migash openly accepted the viewpoint that Joshua wrote the last eight verses of the Torah. One point which I did not make in Limits is that while the Talmud attributes to individual tannaim the view that the last eight verses in the Torah were written by Joshua, in Sifrei, Devarim, piska 357, this opinion is cited anonymously, apparently signifying that it is the view of the Sages as a whole, which is then challenged by R. Meir.

וימת שם משה איפשר שמת משה וכותב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מיכן ואילך כתב יהושע רבי מאיר אומר הרי הוא אומר ויכתוב משה את התורה הזאת איפשר שנתן משה את התורה כשהיא חסירה אפילו אות אחת . . .

See Nahum Bruell in Beit Talmud 2 (1881), p. 15. [5] “Two Notes on the Commentary on the Torah of R. Yehudah he-Hasid,” in Michael A. Shmidman, ed. Turim (New York, 2008), pp. 245-246. Ephraim Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz (Detroit, 2013), p. 32, writes: “The availability of this kind of interpretational freedom and variety also allowed Hasidei Ashkenaz to be comfortable with Ibn Ezra’s stipulation of verses that may have been added to the Torah after the revelation at Sinai.” [6] See my “Is Modern Orthodoxy Moving Towards an Acceptance of Biblical Criticism?” Modern Judaism 37 (May 2017), pp. 1-29, where I also discuss Modern Orthodox thinkers who go beyond this and have accepted the assumptions of modern biblical scholarship regarding source criticism. See also my post here. In my article, I neglected to mention R. Michael Abraham who also sees no religious objection to post-Mosaic additions to the Torah, or even that the Torah is composed from different sources (as posited by the Documentary Hypothesis). See here, here, here, here, and here. [7] “Shitat ha-Behinot” shel ha-Rav Mordechai Breuer, ed. Yosef Ofer (Alon Shevut, 2005), p. 311. The standard view is that Ibn Ezra believed that the post-Mosaic additions are from later prophets, but R. Breuer seems to understand Ibn Ezra to mean that these additions are simply readers’ notes, which would not be prophetic (p. 312):

והואיל ואין כל ודאות, שנוסח הרוב הוא גם הנוסח הנכון, כבר אפשרי הדבר שספר התורה שבידינו כולל דברים שנוספו לו אחר כך על ידי סופרים טועים, אך מעולם לא היו בספר שנמסר למשה מפי הגבורה.

והאמור בטעויות סופרים אמור גם בתוספות של תלמידים. שהרי הדבר ידוע, שדרכם של קוראים להוסיף את הערותיהם בגיליון הספר – ואחר כך באים “תלמידים טועים” ומוסיפים את ההערות האלה בגופו של הספר. ואין לך ספר שאיננו כולל הוספות או גלוסות כאלה. ואבן עזרא סבור, כנראה, שגם ספר התורה לא יצא מכלל זה, והוא כולל אפוא גם דברים שלא נכתבו על ידי מחבר הספר, אלא נוספו לו אחר כך על ידי הלומדים. אבל מובן מאליו, שהוא יכול היה לומר את הדבר הזה רק על אותם מקומות מועטים, שתוכנם מעיד עליהם שהם הוספות מאוחרות.

[8] I say “generally correct” because the assumption that medieval figures only referred to “the later addition of a few scattered phrases” is not accurate if one includes explanations offered by commentaries on Ibn Ezra. In this post as well I give examples which refer to more than“ a few scattered phrases” [9] R. Yehoshua Enbal, who often presents original perspectives, has a very strange passage in his Torah she- Ba’al Peh (Jerusalem, 2015), p. 685:

כלהטענה ש“התורה שבידינו היא המסורה למשה רבינו עליו השלום“, אינה באה בנימוק הגיוני שלא יתכן שאירעה איזו טעות בימי יהושע בן נון ונוספה אות ו‘ באיזו מלה, כאשר בזמן משה לא היתה קיימת אות זו. טכנית אולי הדבר ייתכן, ואף יש חילופי נוסח זעומים בפועל בין העדות. אלא שמי שמחזיק בדעה כזו, עם כל הכבוד וההערכה, והנימוקים ההגיוניים שאולי יצרף לדבריו, אינו חלק מהדת שלנו, שכן ויתור על אות אחת, הינו ויתור על הטקסט כולו, שאינו אלא סך של אותיות. אם נוותר על א‘ ועל ב‘ ועל ג‘, איננו מאמינים בכלום. הקישור בין כלל זה לבין נימוק הגיוני, מעקר את הכלל, אין העיקר קובע שהגיוני מאד שלא אירע שום שינוי ואף מנסה לשכנע אותנו, שכן נימוק הגיוני אין כחו יפה בהכרח כנגד נימוקים שיבואו אומולו, מחקרים אחרים שיבואו ביום מן הימים. העיקר קובע שרירותית את גבולות .הדתהדת מוקירה ומעריכה כל שימוש בהגיון, ואף יכולה להביע הערכה להברקות מקוריות, אבל המחזיק בדעה שלא כל התורה מפי הגבורה, חוצה פורמלית את הגבול שבין דת להעידרה.

R. Enbal’s declaration that one who expresses doubt about the authenticity of a vav in the Masoretic text is to be regarded as a heretic cannot be taken seriously, especially as he himself notes, there are differences in this regard between different communities. In fact, before the printing press, there were widespread variations among Torah scrolls when it came to minor spelling differences, and the Talmud, Midrash, and medieval commentators often preserve different readings than the Masoretic text. See Limits, ch. 7. And what is one to ?העיקר קובע שרירותית את גבולות הדת make of his statement that Principles of faith are to be determined arbitrarily without regard for truth? Earlier on the page he writes (emphasis added):

באוקיינוס של דעות מתפשטות, שהתחיל כבר בזמן הרמב“ם, וכמובן בזמננו, מבלי גבול שרירותי, נישאר רק עם טקסט.וכמובן גם הטקסט עצמו זקוק להגנה שרירותית, שכן ניתן לטעון שחלקים ממנו אינם מקוריים. I can’t imagine that this approach, which sounds like it comes from Isaiah Leibowitz, will find many backers. R. Breuer obviously had a different perspective. See “Shitat ha-Behinot” shel ha-Rav Mordechai Breuer, p. 74:

אף על פי שרק נוסח המסורה ראוי להיקרא “נוסח המקרא” – שהרי רק הוא נתקבל על ידי ההלכה – עדיין רשאים אנחנו לשאול אם זהו גם הנוסח המקורי של המקרא

[10] Viezel, “R. Judah he-Hasid or R. Moshe Zaltman: Who Proposed that Torah Verses were Written After the Time of Moses?” Journal of Jewish Studies 66 (Spring, 2015), pp. 97-115. [11] In R. Menahem M. Kasher’s Torah Shelemah, beginning with parashat Ki Tissa, vol. 2, this Targum is included. R. Kasher was very excited by the discovery of this Targum and wrote about it in a number of places, in particular in Torah Shelemah, vol. 24, which is devoted to the Targumim. One of the most fascinating points he makes is as follows Torah( Shelemah, vol. 24, pp. 22ff.).

Each of the three .וכתב לה ספר כריתות:Deut. 24:3 states Targumim translates this passage differently.

ויכתוב לה גט פטורין :Onkelos

ויכתוב לה אגרא דשיבוקין :Neofiti

ויכתוב לה ספר תירוכין :Ps. Jonathan

Mishnah, Gittin 9:3 states:

גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט, הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה ,אוֹמֵר וְדֵין דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִנַּאי סֵפֶר תֵּרוּכִין וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין וְגֵט פִּטּוּרִין, לִמְהָךְ לְהִתְנְסָבָא לְכָל גְּבַר דְּתִצְבַּיִן

The Gemara offers no reason for the text of the get that R. Judah requires. Why would one need to repeat the same thing in three different ways? (Contemporary gittin differ from R. פטרית ושבקית:Judah’s text, but still include the three terms Later rabbinic authorities offer all sorts of forced (ותרוכית explanations for this. R. Betzalel Ashkenazi,She’elot u- Teshuvot, no. 21, writes:

גט פטורין כמו שתרגם אונקלוס על גט כריתות אבל תרוכין ושבוקין ושאר הדברים שהם דברי עצמו אשר לא כתוב בספר appear in גט פטוריןR. Ashkenazi recognizes that the words Onkelos, but he thinks the other two words are original to R. Judah. (This shows that R. Ashkenazi did not have access to Targum Ps. Jonathan).

According to R. Kasher, R. Judah was simply using the Targumim known to him. He required inclusion in the get of the three so that everyone כריתות different words that explain the term would understand its meaning. In other words, he was including that was prevalent among כריתות every possible translation of the Aramaic speaking Jews, and this would ensure that a get written this way would be accepted by all who used these Targumim. [12] Geula, “‘Le-Fi ha-Peshat Ezra Katav . . . O Moshe Ketavo be-Ruah ha-Kodesh’: Hearot al Hibbur ha-Torah be-Ferush Hadash le-Torah mi-Ketav Yad Vatican,” in Avigdor Shinan and Yisrael Y. Huval, eds.,Divrei Hakhamim ve-Hidotam (Jerusalem, 2018), pp. 89-114. instead מלוך מלך Geula, pp. 91, 92. The verse is cited as [13] but that is to indicate the pronunciation, as the ,מְלָךְ of first lamed has a kamatz katan. We find examples of this in our text of the Talmud (although we would have to check manuscripts to see how far back this goes). For example, the if you put a suffix on it, theholam then becomes ,כּׄתֶל word as we see in Song of Songs 2:9. Yet ,כָּתְלנו :a kamatz katan .כָּתְלי instead ofכּותלי throughout the Talmud we find the form . צׄרֶךThe same thing happens if you put a suffix on the word In the .צורכך not צָרְכךThus, in II Chron. 4:15 we have .(צרכי as well as) צורכיTalmud, however, you have the form This was noted by R. Bentzion Cohen, Sefat Emet ((Jerusalem, 1997), p. 167. [14] See the text published by Isaac Lange in Ha-Ma’yan 12 (Tamuz, 5732), p. 83. [15] Perush ha-Rokeah al ha-Torah (Bnei Brak, 1979), p. 258; also in Tosafot ha-Shalem al ha-Torah, vol. 3, p. 287, [16] See Geula, p. 90. [17] Geula, p. 96. [18] Ed. Buber (Berlin, 1900), p. 298. [19] “A Jewish Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: Its Rabbinic Roots, Its Diffusion and Its Encounter with the Muslim Doctrine of Falsification,” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 2 (2003), pp. 123-167. [20] Geula, p. 100. [21] On the other hand, R. Zvi Yisrael Tau, Tzaddik be-Emunato Yihyeh, pp. 281-282, rejects the legitimacy of this opinion in favor of Maimonides’ principle. He further states that allowing such a view, that there are limited post-Mosaic additions, will open the door to all forms of Higher Criticism and the consequent rejection of Torah min ha-Shamayim. As such, he does not believe that future teachers should be exposed the views of Ibn Ezra, R. Judah he-Hasid, and the others we have discussed.

מדוע חשוב לו כל כך לומר את זה? למה כל כך חשוב למרצה הזה שהמורה העתידי יידע את זה? התשובה היא כי אחרי שעוברים את המחסום הזה, נעשים פתוחים לכל ביקורת המקרא ולכל הדעות האוניברסיטאיות. is or even פנדייאFarber’s note: I do not know what city [22] how to transliterate it properly. [23] See Abhandlungen zur Erinnerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes, 259. [24] This is the proper spelling, not Pinfer. See Masoret ha- Torah ve-ha-Nevi’im, p. 119. [25] R. Finfer wished to publish a Tanakh that would replace the Christian chapters we have become accustomed to with the Jewish divisions. In Masoret ha-Torah ve-ha-Nevi’im, p. 118, he published a letter from R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim agreeing with him in this matter and calling this a “mitzvah gedolah“. However, it is reported that the Hazon Ish disagreed, as the Ein Mishpat on the Talmud refers to the Christian chapters, and we have become so attuned to this that any change now would cause more problems than it is worth. See R. Reuven Elitzur, Degel Mahaneh Reuven, p. 363. (The Hazon Ish was the older brother of R. Finfer’s son-in-law, R. Moses Karelitz.) R. Finfer had a small success in that Koren’s divisions are based on R. Finfer. See R. Eliyahu Katz, Be’er Eliyahu (n.p., 2002), p. 151.

R. Finfer reports that the Vilna Gaon brought back the practice of reading the haftarah from a scroll, and that this then spread throughout Lithuania. See Masoret ha-Torah ve-ha- Nevi’im, p. 114.

Also of interest is that it was R. Finfer who published the famous mysterious letter of the Vilna Gaon. Often reprinted, the letter first appeared in the Jerusalem journal Torah mi- Tziyon 3 (Tishrei 5658).

Regarding unknown materials from the Vilna Gaon, I recently found a letter from Shirley Feuerstein to Yaacov Herzog that I think readers will find of interest. It is located in the Yaacov Herzog Archives at the Israel State Archives, new file ,פavailable here; old file no.: 4068/21- no.: 000zl9r.

[26] Mesamhei Lev (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 296, called to my attention by Rabbi Yitzhak Churaqi. R. Berdugo offers a different perspective in his Mei Menuhot (Jerusalem, 2009), vol. 2, p. 917:

שלא יחובר לתורתו של משה רבינו ע”ה שום נבואה אחרת כללת כי מסלוק משה רבינו ע”ה נחתמה התורה . . . כי לא קם ולא יקום מי שיוסיף על התורה אפילו אות אחת

[27] Mesamhei Lev, p. 150. [28] See Pithei Teshuvah, Yoreh Deah 274:7, who cites R. Jonah Landsofer, Benei Yonah, Yoreh Deah 274:20, that if a letter is mistakenly written large or small it does not disqualify the Torah scroll. [29] See R. Nahum Abraham, Darkhei ha-Ma’amarim (n.p., 2017), pp. 146-147 (first pagination), who states that what appears in Derekh Sihah is heresy, and therefore he denies that R. Kanievsky could have said it.