New Book Announcement: Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri (Volume Three)

New Book Announcement: Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri (Volume Three) By Eliezer Brodt I am very happy to announce the recent publication of an important work, which will be of great interest to readers of the Seforim blog. The third volume of, Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri by Professor Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel, of Bar-Ilan University’s department.

As I have written in the past, Professor Spiegel is one of the most prolific writers in the Jewish academic scene, authoring of over 160 articles and 18 books (16 of those are publications for the first time of works which remained in manuscript). Many suspect he possesses Hashbot Hakulmos (automatic writing). His articles cover an incredibly wide range of subjects related to many areas of Jewish Studies, including history of ,piyutim authored by Rishonim, bibliography and minhaghim, to name but a few. His uniqueness lies not only in the topics but also that his work has appeared in all types of publications running the gamut from academic journals such as Kiryat Sefer, Tarbiz, Sidra, Alei Sefer, Assufot, Teudah, Kovetz Al Yad and also in many prominent Charedi rabbinic journals such a Yeshurun, Yerushasenu, Moriah, Sinai and Or Yisroel. It is hard to define his area of expertise, as in every area he writes about he appears to be an expert! He has edited and printed from manuscript many works of Rishonim and Achronim on Massekhes Avos and the Haggadah Shel Pesach. He is of the opinion, contrary to that of some other academics, that there is nothing non- academic about printing critical editions of important manuscript texts. Although there is a known “belief” in the academic world, “publish or perish,” which some claim is the cause of weak articles and books, at times, Spiegel’s prolific output does nothing to damper the quality of his works. Another point unique to Speigel’s writings, besides his familiarity with all the academic sources, he shows great familiarity with all the classic sources from , , Rishonim and Achronim, to even the most recent discussions in Charedi literature – this bekius (breadth) was apparent well before the advent of search engines of Hebrew books and Otzar Ha-hochmah. Alongside all this is his penetrating analysis and ability to raise interesting points. Some of these articles were collected into a volume calledPischei Tefilah u-Mo’ad, which was reviewed a few years back here on the seforim blog. This volume is currently out of print. One of Professor Spiegel’s main areas of interest has been the History of the Jewish Book. He has written numerous articles on the subject and even published two books on this topic in a series called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri. Volume one was first printed in 1996 and is called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri: Haghot u-Maghim. It was reprinted with numerous additions in 2005 (copies are still available). It was reviewed by Dan Rabinowitz and me, a few years back here on the Seforim Blog. The second volume is called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri; Kesivah Vehatakah. This volume is currently out of print and will hopeful be the subject of a book review by Dan Rabinowitz and myself in the next few months. I think that anyone who has an interest in the Jewish Book will enjoy this work immensely. In the near future I hope to review this work in depth. Next week the blog will feature some sample pages of this new work. For a short time I will be selling copies of this work for $32. The price includes airmail shipping (to the US UK or Canada). Copies are also available at Biegeleisen. For more information about purchasing this work, feel free to contact me at Eliezerbrodtatgmail.com To get a sense of what exactly this new book is about, I am posting the Table of Contents here:

The Creative Craftsman: Adorning The , One Crown At A Time

The Creative Craftsman: Adorning The Torah, One Crown At A Time By Olivia Friedman Olivia Friedman received her M.A. in Bible from the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies. Based in Chicago, she is a Judaic Studies teacher, tutor, writer, and lecturer and can be reached at oliviafried-at-gmail-dot- com. It’s not surprising that there are many overlooked biblical commentators. However, R’ ’s is one who ought to be rescued from relative obscurity. Sorotzkin’s biography and tumultuous history helped shape his unique outlook upon Tanakh. His vision and appreciation for cultural context allows readers access to the text via the road of personal relevance. His biblical commentary’s contemporary resonance will recommend him to modern day in particular. Biography Born in 1881 in Zachrina, (Sofer), he was influenced by his father, R’ Benzion, a man who spent much of his time learning Torah and bringing others closer to God (Anonymous 4). A brilliant orator, R’ Benzion had the ability to move people to tears. This last extended even to his son, whom he always cautioned, warning him that if he did not shed tears when he prayed the words ‘And light up our eyes with Your Torah’ he would not be successful in his studies that day (Anonymous 4). R’ Benzion’s wife, Chienah, was the daughter of the sage and kabbalist R’ Chaim who wrote the work Divrei Chaim on the Torah (Anonymous 4). Born to two such illustrious people, it was hardly surprising that Zalman, a young prodigy, applied himself to his studies. He learned in his father’s house and then in the famous Slobodka alongside the esteemed R’ Moshe Danishevsky, choosing later to study in Volozhin under R’ Raphael Shapiro (Anonymous 4). Zalman created a name for himself due to his diligence and success in his studies; his reputation spread throughout the land and even reached Telz. , Dean of Telz, gave R’ Zalman Sorotzkin his daughter’s hand in marriage. Her name was Sarah Miriam. Once married, Sorotzkin chose to learn in seclusion for many years in Volozhin, after which he returned to Telz because the yeshiva had burned down. He accepted the position of principal in order to rebuild the yeshiva, a mission he successfully completed (Anonymous 5). Upon the death of his father-in-law, he was invited to Voronova, which is situated between Lidda and Vilna, to be the spiritual leader and . R’ Zalman accepted the offer and immediately set his sights upon recreating the city. At this time he also became good friends with R’ , who lived nearby in Vilna (Sofer). As soon as R’ Zalman came to Voronova, he made a yeshiva for young students and did his utmost to forge strong relationships with the community members, who saw him as a mentor, teacher and spiritual guide (Anonymous 5). When he had completed his task in Voronova, R’ Zalman determined to move to Zhetel, where he focused on important work such as constructing its Talmud Torah (Sofer) and offering support in the areas of financial upkeep of the home. Sorotzkin was never divorced from the reality of everyday living or hardships within the Jewish communities. Indeed, such hardship and misfortune struck him as well. Upon the arrival of World War I, he and his family were forced to flee and escape to Minsk (Sofer).[1] His name having preceded him, upon his arrival he immediately utilized his time and energy in serving the people of the community, specifically working to ensure that as many and Torah students as possible could be spared from conscription to the Russian army (Anonymous 5).[2] Sorotzkin traveled to St. Petersburg and due to his connections with General Stasowitz, “managed to procure ‘temporary deferments’ for hundreds of rabbis who were not recognized by the Polish government” (Sofer). Due to a mistake on General Stasowitz’s part, these deferments remained in effect throughout the entire period of the war. R’ Sorotzkin also spoke and offered words of encouragement and praise to the Jews of the community; he was known to possess a golden tongue (Anonymous 5). After the war was over, Sorotzkin returned to Zhetel briefly. Due to his fame and abilities, he was courted as potential Rav by many different communities; in 1930, he finally determined to head the community of Lutsk. He transformed the community, working to ensure that the schools and yeshivot were of top quality (Sofer) while also focusing on national matters. He was appointed by R’ Chaim Ozer Grodzinski to head the Committee for the Defense of Ritual Slaughter, as Poland had determined that halakhic ritual slaughter was cruel. When the law against ritual slaughter was passed, R’ Sorotzkin countered by “placing a ban on meat consumption” (Sofer). Three million Polish Jews no longer purchasing meat was enough to cause cattle-owners to place pressure upon the government, who then cancelled the decree. When the Polish government decided to establish an elite rabbinate, one of those chosen was R’ Zalman Sorotzkin (Anonymous 6). Upon the outbreak of World War II, the Soviet authorities planned to arrest R’ Zalman Sorotzkin (Anonymous 6). Thus, he and his family were forced to flee to Vilna, where R’ Chaim Ozer Grodzinski “instructed him to immediately attend to the needs of the ” (Sofer). It was only once Vilna was taken over by the Bolsheviks that Sorotzkin and other escapees began a long, arduous journey to (Anonymous 6). They were helped by the sages and rabbis in America.[3] Despite the many tragedies that had occurred in his family (the loss of his only daughter, his son, his father-in-law and grandchildren during World War II), R’ Zalman Sorotzkin remained undeterred and threw himself into communal obligations once more. He created a Vaad HaYeshivos in Israel similar to the one that had existed in Vilna. Its first task was to “provide a financial base for the yeshivas” (Sofer). When Agudas Israel was organized in Israel and the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah [Council of Torah Sages] was formed, the Gaon R’ was appointed and R’ Sorotzkin was chosen to assist him. After R’ Isser Zalman Meltzer passed away, R’ Sorotzkin took over the position as head of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah himself (Anonymous 7). When the Israeli government decided to start government-structured education and do away with certain aspects of Judaic education that had existed until then, the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah banded together in order to create a chain of schools that would accord with their views on education (Anonymous 7). The plan by the Israeli government was to create three different streams of education- “one for general Zionism, one for Labor-oriented Zionism, and one for the Mizrachi” (Sofer). Later, the government wished to reduce these streams to two- “a secular state system and a religious state system” (Sofer). This was not something the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah could support; they had very particular views regarding Jewish education and having their curriculum approved or managed by the government was unacceptable. They therefore created the Chinuch Atzmai initiative.[4] R’ Zalman Sorotzkin took over leadership for this project and put much effort into it. He started many schools while simultaneously recording his novel insights into Torah, publishing several works, including Aznayim L’Torah, his commentary on the Torah, Moznayim L’Torah, his commentary on the festivals, andHaDeiah v’HaDibur, which focuses both on Torah and the festivals. Having dedicated his life to the betterment of circumstances for the Jewish people, he passed away on the 9th of Tamuz 5726 (1966). Masterwork One of R’ Zalman Sorotzkin’s seminal works – perhaps the seminal work – was his Aznayim L’Torah [Ears for the Torah]. His introduction to the work, printed in front of his commentary to Genesis, contains his personal outlook on life and an explanation of what inspired him to write this commentary. He begins by noting the distinction between simple praise and the higher level of praise and thanks. Praise is offered when someone does a positive action in a normal or traditional manner. But the higher level of praise and thanks occurs when someone does something in an unusual way, where they are coming from a place of love and compassion. Sorotzkin argues that all of the Jews who were blessed and gifted with survival after the horrors of World War II need to thank God for their salvation. All the more so does this apply to those who were lucky enough, like himself, to make their way to the land of Israel. Sorotzkin’s humility is demonstrated by his passionate belief that he, his wife and his family are so insignificant in relation to the many other people who perished in . “Who am I and who is my household that You saved us?” he questions God. He explains that he feels truly blessed that he was able to see his books in print and come to Israel where he could serve God. Then, shockingly, he also blesses and praises God with regard to all the horrors that had been visited upon him. Despite the fact that many of his family members perished in the Holocaust, he chooses to see this as the will of God and thinks that he too has a portion in their blood of atonement. He wholeheartedly believes that God will be good and avenge their blood and that because of this physical death they have all earned eternal life. At this point in the introduction, R’ Sorotzkin begins to delineate the sources and motivations for his commentary. There are four of them. First, he credits his rebbe, who taught him Chumash [Bible] and accustomed him to review it diligently. There were times that R’ Sorotzkin reviewed an entire book of the Five Books in a day, and completed all five within the week. Due to this wide exposure to Tanakh, R’ Sorotzkin was given a wonderful background off of which to compose speeches and to find answers to the problems of life within the Torah. Second, he credits his son. He desired to fulfill the commandment of V’shinantam l’vanecha [and you shall teach/ make it sharp for your son] for at least one day a week without making use of a shliach [agent]. Thus, he accustomed himself to learn the portion of the week on the Sabbath with his son, doing his utmost to plant the seeds for love of Torah and fear of God. His son had many excellent questions and R’ Sorotzkin explains that he learned a lot from his son, who would offer lots of novel insights to him. Third, R’ Sorotzkin was not limited to learning with his son but also learned with many other people. He explains that throughout his career in Lutsk, Zhetel and Voronova and continuing to , he would give over short speeches and lectures themed as pertaining to Torah. In this way he created flowers and adornments for the section of the week, beautifying it and making it holy. He tried to find connections between the Written Law and the Oral Law in order to truly connect with and reach other people. Fourth, R’ Sorotzkin was bothered by all the troubles that beset the Jews- decrees, wars, a time of destruction, leaving religion, breaking educational boundaries and exile. He therefore decided to write a commentary that would speak to the times and address the issues of the generation, trying to show his beleaguered people that the light of God that comes from understanding the Bible and Prophets may illuminate their lives as well. R’ Sorotzkin writes that he looked over his lifework a number of times before publishing it, adding sections and subtracting others until he felt that he had truly created his masterwork. He specifically chose the name Aznayim L’Torah because it reflected the essence of the work- this demonstrates his own experience in listening to the messages the Torah conveys as well as the way in which the book was formed, through listening to the ideas and insights of others (such as his students). Perhaps the most important aspect of Sorotzkin’s work was his clear desire to enable it to be accessible to all. He offers a guide as to what many different members of society will be able to discover within its covers. Rabbis and scholars will appreciate finding the words of our sages and other interwoven concepts in clear and concise language. Teachers will find explanations and clarifications in accordance with the simple understanding of the text and ideas that will enter into the minds of their students. Learned people will find new insights and explanations, specifically words that are accepted into the heart. In this way, his commentary aims to be useful to and appreciated by all. Sorotzkin explains a stylistic choice he made regarding his utilization of the words ‘Maybe’ or ‘Perhaps’ throughout his commentary. He explains that he wrote his commentary keeping the adage of the Tosfos Yom Tov in mind (Brachot 85: 44) that it is permissible to offer explanation and commentary on the Torah only via the method of explicating the simple understanding or a more complicated understanding so long as one does not claim this is the final and inarguable mode of comprehending the text. Sorotzkin explains that his commentary reflects his thoughts and the reader is welcome to take them or leave them; he understands that there are seventy facets to the Torah and the reader should feel free to choose whichever snippets of his commentary speak most to him. Sorotzkin concludes by dedicating his work to the memory of his father and mother, whom he praises and admires, and thus begins the reader’s journey into the mind and methods of a nobly intentioned man. Examples of Sorotzkin’s Unique Approach Via Deuteronomy What Sets Deuteronomy Apart Sorotzkin begins his commentary to the Book of Deuteronomy by noting the distinct differences between this book and the other four books of the Torah. The other four books are linked to Genesis and appear to be one Torah, but this work begins with the words ‘These are the words’, making it stand alone. It even has its own title, he explains- that of Mishnah Torah. The second distinction appears in the way the narrative is told over. Throughout the rest of the Torah, lashon nistar – secretive or hidden language- is utilized. Events are told over in the third person: ‘And God spoke to Moses.’ In contrast, here much of the book is recorded in the first person. Third, the content of Deuteronomy is quite different: it seems to be review of precepts formerly discussed in the other works alongside rebuke and chastisement. Fourth, aside from the title Mishnah Torah, the work has another name, Sefer HaYashar [The Book of the Righteous] which also requires explanation. Sorotzkin argues that the entire Torah is from God and anyone who suggests that even one verse was written by Moses of his own initiative is incorrect. If so, however, why are there all the aforementioned distinctions between this work and other works? R’ Zalman explains that it would have been difficult for a generation steeped in idolatry to serve God appropriately, which was part of the reason that God decreed that the generation had to stay in the desert for forty years, during which time its children could grow up knowing only God and unfamiliar with idols and other forms of impurity. Moses wished to ensure that this second generation would not sin and thus wanted to paint a vivid picture of all that had transpired in order to warn and guide them so that when they crossed the Jordan they would not be lost. Sorotzkin cites the Abarbanel who explains that first Moses spoke these words and afterwards God gave him leave to include them within the Torah. Thus, the fact that they were written within the authoritative text was not of his own initiative. Due to this work’s emphasis on reviewing the commandments and offering rebuke, it was entitled Mishnah Torah. Yet why was it entitled Sefer HaYashar? This is due to the verse in Deuteronomy 6: 18, ‘And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord that it may be well with thee.’ Yet doesn’t it also mention the word ‘yashar’ in Exodus? Yes, explains R’ Sorotzkin, but the word is mentioned far more frequently in Deuteronomy than Exodus and the title of a book follows the frequency of the topic/ theme mentioned therein. He cites the Maharsha, who explains the verse in 6:18 as referring to the need to operate lifnei m’shuras ha’din [above and beyond the letter of the law]. Moses is thus instructing the Jews to follow God’s law but not just the letter of the law; rather, the spirit of the law as well. R’ Sorotzkin then offers a beautiful understanding of the Midrash Rabbah which suggests that this particular work was found in Joshua’s hands and that it is thus understood that the King of the Jews must carry it with him at all times. Since all of the Torah is meant for all Jews, why is Deuteronomy specifically offered to/ meant to be found upon the person of a king? R’ Sorotzkin explains that it is because the king has special powers to put people to death simply due to his law (outside of the typical workings of a Jewish court). Thus, the king might be tempted or fall prey to acting in a cruel manner. It is specifically this book which focuses upon the need to operate in a way which is above and beyond the letter of the law that will remind him that he is accountable for his actions and it is better to be merciful and charitable, as King David was, than to be too quick to punish. This is the reason that throughout Tanakh the words yashar [righteous] and tov [good] are associated with David and those who follow in his footsteps. This explains the reason that this work specifically should not be forgotten and should not ever be absent from a leader’s lips; he must know and understand and remember the need to act in a just and righteous manner so as not to betray God and the mission God offered him. Various Orientations to Text- Literary, Realistic, Personal, Psychological R’ Zalman Sorotzkin’s commentary is both beautiful and peculiar in that it does not seem to follow simply one methodological method or attempt to reach one goal. Since the main themes that motivated him in the writing of it were accessibility to the populace and speaking to the times, it is perhaps not surprising that his analysis, ideas and thoughts are so varied. He particularly focuses upon literary and psychological problems within the text, but also appeals to modern readings of the verses in addition to consistently comparing verses that appear within one text to those found in a different place. By dint of these comparisons he desires to draw out a point, sometimes an important and overarching message that helps demonstrate the particular significance of the passage he is currently explicating. The varied and sporadic nature of his commentary typifies its genius. There is something here for everyone, from the child to the scholar. It is almost like attending a banquet where many sumptuous foods and delicacies are served. One person may prefer the chocolate mousse while another may enjoy tenderloin steak, and both are lovingly presented upon the table. Sorotzkin’s careful reading of verses translates to a fascinating analysis ranging from the more obvious understanding that Deuteronomy begins without use of the conjunctive vav to his more subtle reading of Deuteronomy 1:5. There, R’ Sorotzkin questions how it would help to ‘explain’ the Torah in foreign languages seeing as the Jews would not have understood these languages. He then offers a reading where the Hebrew word lashon means ‘idiom’ and thus is referring to the fact that Moses in fact explained the seventy facets of the Torah as opposed to writing them down in different tongues. Sorotzkin is concerned with reality and with events making sense on a logical plane; thus his worry over an ‘explanation’ that wouldn’t actually help explain anything! Similarly, in keeping with his desire to link the Written Torah and Oral Torah, Sorotzkin’s careful literary analysis allows him to demonstrate that there are places where this must be so. In Deuteronomy 1:11, he comments on the words ‘May God add to you…a thousand times yourselves.’ In keeping with ’ understanding regarding cities of refuge, where an additional three cities were not yet added and thus it means that they will be added in the time of Messiah, Sorotzkin notes that there has not yet been a time in history where there have been six hundred million Jews. Since the Torah does not offer false promises, he argues, this blessing too must refer to a future time (that of the Messiah). Yet his literary awareness also leads him to shed light upon deceptively simple texts. For instance, in Deuteronomy 2:6, he comments to the verse ‘You shall purchase food…so that you may eat, also water…so that you may drink.’ After citing other commentaries’ explanations of this verse, the question being why it was necessary to explain that the people would eat or drink the food (isn’t that evident?) he offers his own, elegantly linking it back to the complaints registered against the manna in Numbers 21:5. There, the Hebrews had declared that they were ‘disgusted with the insubstantial food.’ There were also those who found fault with the water from the miraculous well, as stated by the Netziv. Here, notes R’ Sorotzkin, the people will have a chance to purchase food and water as opposed to the manna and miraculous well upon which they had previously been subsisting. God knew, however, that as soon as they did so they would realize that they had in fact lacked nothing for the forty years in which they had traipsed through the desert, and that God’s food was superior to anything they could purchase. Thus, the simple explanation of the verse is that the Hebrews purchased food as opposed to eating their own because they longed for something to eat which was not miraculous in origin. R’ Sorotzkin’s appreciation for stylistic literary choices is further demonstrated in his understanding of Deuteronomy 1:44. He elaborates upon the verse ‘As the bees would do,’ creating an extended metaphor that explains how precisely the actions of these men who desired to possess the land of Israel were akin to those of bees. He explains that “[b]ees make honey, but also sting” (Lavon 24) which is why, when a beekeeper desires to harvest his honey, he must first light a fire with green wood, which will send up lots of billowing smoke. The bees “run inside the hive and cower” (Lavon 25) upon smelling the smoke, at which time the beekeeper is able to harvest the honey. In contrast, someone who desires to steal the honey will not be able to announce his presence by kindling a fire. Thus, he must approach unshielded and the bees will sting him to death. In the end, he must flee in order to preserve his life (Lavon 25). Similarly, explains R’ Sorotzkin, the men who wished to possess the land of Israel did so unlawfully and therefore the pillar of cloud which accompanied them in the desert did not protect them. Indeed, if they had received God’s explicit command and blessing, that cloud would have annihilated their enemies and caused them to fall dead in their path. The Jews would then be able to possess the land which was flowing with milk and honey, the Amorites having left them untouched. However, “when these willful people barged in unlawfully, they were like thieves seeking to take honey from the hive without a smokescreen” (Lavon 25). For this reason, the Amorites were able to fall upon them “like bees” (Lavon 25) and far from conquering the land flowing with milk and honey, these Hebrews lost their lives in the attempt. Sorotzkin’s reading is imaginative, creative and extremely vivid; he takes one sentence within the verse and conjures up an entire scenario which adds flavor and meaning to the text. Sorotzkin’s playful personality arguably appears in his analysis of Deuteronomy 3:26. There, God has informed Moses that rav lach [it is too much for you]. Sorotzkin interprets this as a literary play on words. Rav lach could also mean ‘a Rabbi for you.’ Moses had suggested that even if he was not permitted to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land, perhaps he could act as an ordinary citizen and follow Joshua’s command. God’s answer to this was rav lach– ‘acting as a Rav is the task for you’ and that he would be unable to be a mere student. Sorotzkin notes that this fits perfectly with the Midrash Tanhuma’s understanding that after Moses learned Torah from Joshua he said, “Until now I requested my life, but now, my soul is Yours for the taking.” Aside from puns and creative interpretation, Sorotzkin’s commentary is also sprinkled with comments that show his humility. In his commentary to Deuteronomy 1:15, he gives credit to his nephew for the explanation he offers. In Deuteronomy 1:15, he frankly admits that he did not fully understand the Vilna Gaon’s holy words. He is not shy of admitting his lack of understanding. Similarly, in Deuteronomy 1:46, he seems puzzled, explaining that he cannot understand why Rashi offered an interpretation that is contrary to the one found in Seder Olam. This is aside from the fact that his commentary as a whole is peppered with sources outside of himself, whether they are traditional greats like Rashi, Maimonides and the like or the Vilna Gaon, Melo HaOmer or Ka’aras Kesef. Sorotzkin clearly valued the contributions of those other than himself and uses them as springboards off of which to base his own ideas. Perhaps Sorotzkin’s most compelling renderings of Tanakh appear in his psychological readings of various verses. Indeed, he often links the literary to the psychological, noticing particular wording in a verse or the placement or juxtaposition of several verses, and then coming to conclusions about the significance of this order. In his commentary to Deuteronomy 1:1, ‘The words that Moses spoke,’ Sorotzkin explains that people will listen to a speaker for one of two reasons. One: The speaker may be a gifted orator who knows how to latch onto and grab hold of the hearts of men. Two: He is speaking on behalf of a famous and important person, and thus even if his tongue is made of stone, he will still command attention. For this reason, when Moses speaks with God by the burning bush, the objections he has reflect his psychological state. Moses realizes that he will not be able to command the attention of the Hebrews because they do not know who God is and thus will not attend since reason two will not apply in their case. Due to this, he concludes his conversation with God by explaining that he is not a man of words as opposed to opening with that objection. Similarly, in his commentary to Deuteronomy 1:17, Sorotzkin is surprised by Moses’ language. The verse seems to suggest that Moses sees himself as capable of solving any problem; indeed, he declares that “any matter which is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me and I shall hear it” (Deut 1:17)! How can it be that the humblest man on earth, deemed so by God Himself, can be so arrogant as to suggest that he will be able to solve any problem, no matter how thorny? R’ Sorotzkin delves into the psychological underpinnings of Moses’ statement and determines that in fact there is no contradiction at all. What Moses is really stating is that perhaps the judges will come upon a difficult litigant who will not allow them to proceed in their task. Under such circumstances, since Moses has already warned the judges not to ‘tremble before any man,’ he now cautions them that if a litigant comes before them who is too difficult for them, “’bring [this case] to me and I shall hear it,’ for I am willing to suffer the slings and arrows of this difficult man” (Lavon 15). Far from declaring his superiority and claiming that he has the ability and insight to rule in every single case, Moses is acting humbly, explaining that he is not too proud to bear the contempt of a dissatisfied plaintiff. But it does not end there. Sorotzkin’s entire interpretation of the phrase ‘As the Lord, your God, commanded you’ (Deuteronomy 5:16) as it refers to the commandment of honoring one’s father and mother reflects his sensitivity to the psychological conditions under which that generation had been raised. He explains: Normally, children’s love and respect for the parents who brought them into the (present) world grows steadily through the years. The more the child enjoys his life, the more happiness he discovers, then the greater will be his love for the parents who gave him this happy life. In the plains of Moab, Moses was confronted with children who had suffered greatly from wandering in the desert, all because of their parents’ misdeeds. It was their parents who had brought down upon them the decree that “Your children will roam in the Wilderness for forty years and bear [the guilt of] your guilt” (Numbers 14:33). Therefore Moses stressed what God had told him on Mt. Sinai: that this commandment must be done “as the Lord, your God, commanded you”: to honor your parents during their life and afterwards, regardless of how well or ill satisfied you are with your life. (Lavon 79) Once again, Sorotzkin succeeds in making the Torah a contemporary and caring book, demonstrating that Moses understood and spoke to the nation’s psychological state. Sorotzkin’s practical advice and use of anecdotes and stories to flavor his point helps him to fulfill his goal of making his commentary easy and accessible. In his commentary to Deuteronomy 1:1 on ‘These are the words that Moses spoke’ he explains that Moses only engaged in words of Torah, a small matter in those times. Relating the point to his own generation, however, he mentioned that: For Moses, a man of God, this was merely a minor accomplishment. Yet in our own times we merited the example of the Chafetz Chaim, zt”l, who used his tendency to be talkative as a tool to keep away from sin. In order to avoid speaking or hearing idle words, he would talk endlessly to both students and visitors about Torah subjects and Jewish ethics. The great tzaddik R’ Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, zt”l, bore witness that the author of the Shemiras HaLashon guarded his own tongue in a most original way: not by keeping silent, but by always fulfilling v’dibarta bam so that there was never a moment for idle talk. (Lavon 3) Similarly, in his commentary to Deuteronomy 1:1 on the words ‘To all Israel,’ he offers an example from his time, stating: A story is told about a gaon who was famous for his moving discourses. Everyone would run to hear him speak and listen to his words of rebuke. After his death, his discourses were collected and published, but for some reason they did not have a profound effect on their readers. People commented that although these were the very same speeches they remembered hearing from the great man himself, something was missing—the sigh that would escape his lips when he paused. That sigh, which rose from the depths of his heart, broke their hearts when they heard it. For only words that come from the heart can enter the heart. (Lavon 4) Through interweaving these stories and anecdotes, Sorotzkin manages to capture the attention of an element who might not feel connected to the text otherwise. His penetrating psychological insights and evaluations of characters within the text also help to add a dimension of reality to an otherwise distant story. For example, Sorotzkin notices that Moses states “I cannot carry you alone” in Deuteronomy 1:9 only to later state “How can I alone carry your contentiousness?” in verse 12. Why the need for repetition? Answers R’ Sorotzkin: The fact is that being a ruler of Israel is similar to being a slave. Even after Moses, the acknowledged ruler of his people, decided that he was unable to bear all their problems and judge all their cases himself, as he declares in this verse, he asks himself what the people will say. Perhaps his ‘masters’ would think he was shirking his duty towards them, and that he was really capable of bearing the burden by himself. Therefore, he asked them if they agreed with him (v. 12). Let them tell him, if they can, how he can bear it all by himself! Only after they answered him, “The thing that you have proposed to do is good” (v. 14) was his mind at ease. (Lavon 10) Through careful reading of the verses and appreciating the literary significance of the seeming repetition, R’ Sorotzkin seeks to unveil the thoughts that were pressing upon Moses’ mind. Similarly, in Deuteronomy 2:6 in his commentary to the verse ‘Also water shall you buy from them for money’ R’ Sorotzkin deducts the Israelites’ state of mind from the unusual Hebrew word used to mean ‘buy.’ The word is tikhru. R’ Sorotzkin explains that Scripture uses this rare word due to the fact that “the Jewish people may have considered digging a cistern on Edomite land without permission” (Lavon 30). The word tikhru means both ‘buy’ and ‘dig.’ Thus, the hint being given is that if the Israelites wish to “dig for water, they must buy the water!” (Lavon 30) R’ Sorotzkin often identifies echo narratives or notes places where he feels light can be shed by making a comparison (of characters, texts or storylines). In Deuteronomy 1:3, when commenting on ‘In the eleventh month, on the first of the month’ Sorotzkin compares Moses to R’ Hanina bar Papa. He notes that Moses reviewed the Torah with the Jews for a total of thirty-six days, since he began on the first day of the eleventh month and concluded on the seventh of Adar. In contrast, R’ Hanina reviewed Torah for a mere thirty days. Why did it take the latter sage less time? The difference, argues R’ Sorotzkin, is contained in the mode of study and delivery. Moses was speaking to the entire people and needed to elucidate the commandments before all of them whereas R’ Hanina was only learning for and by himself. Thus, the seeming discrepancy is explained. While in that case Sorotzkin drew a comparison between a character in Tanakh as opposed to a different one who appears in the Talmud, he also uses his comparison technique and notices differences and similarities between various characters when solely in their Tanakh context. In his commentary to Deuteronomy 3:27 on ‘For you shall not cross the Jordan’ he explains: Joseph spoke with pride about his native land, saying, “For indeed I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews” (Genesis 40:15). He was therefore rewarded with burial in his own land. Moses did not admit to his native land. When Jethro’s daughters said of him, “An Egyptian man saved us” (Exodus 2:19), he heard and was silent. Therefore, he did not merit burial in his land (Deuteronomy 2:8). People commonly point out that Moses not only refused to admit his native land, but he also denied his people. For Jethro’s daughters called him ‘an Egyptian man’ and that is not only a land but a people. Why was he not punished for this denial as well? Perhaps we can explain this in accordance to the Midrash. When Potiphar saw the Ishmaelites offering Joseph for sale, he said to them, “In all the world the white people sell black people and here are black people selling a white man! This is no slave” (Genesis Rabbah 86). Since the Egyptians were even darker-skinned than the Ishmaelites, everyone must have known that the Jethro’s daughters weren’t referring to Moses as an ethnic Egyptian when they said that “an Egyptian man” had saved them. Clearly he was of the lighter-skinned Hebrews living in Egypt at the time- a resident of the country, but not one of its natives. At this point, Moses should have corrected them and told them that he was not an Egyptian at all, but “from the land of the Hebrews.” (Lavon 51) Sorotzkin not only delineates the differences between the two characters but also uses an appeal to common sense as understood by the Midrash. The Midrash offers its commentary based on (in its view) the realistic approach that Joseph was white and that slaves who were commonly sold were black. This is enough of a proof to demonstrate that Moses could not possibly have been seen as a true Egyptian. Sorotzkin’s appeal to the cultural standard, milieu or conditions of the time is not only expressed here, but often occurs within his commentary. He deliberately chose to read the Bible with modern eyes. In his commentary to the verse ‘Then you spoke up and said to me, ‘We have sinned to God!’(Deuteronomy 4:1), he explains that “[p]erhaps by behaving this way they were straying into the ways of idolaters, who customarily confess sins before their priests” (Lavon 24) which is “not the way of Israel, who confess their sins directly before God- after asking forgiveness from the person they have wronged, if it is a sin between man and his neighbor” (Lavon 24). Sorotzkin’s reference to the practice of confession echoes Catholic practice and creates a situation where the general populace can understand why it was improper for the Hebrews to come weeping to Moses as opposed to simply turning to God. Another example of R’ Sorotzkin’s awareness of the times appears in his commentary to Deuteronomy 12:8 on the verse ‘Every man what is proper in his eyes.’ He sadly notes: Look at the difference between recent generations and the generation of Moses. In more recent times when we talk about, ‘You shall not do…every man what is proper in his eyes,’ we mean things like theft, robbery, adultery, murder or even idolatry, whereas in the generation of Moses, it meant that one must not bring a sacrifice to God on a bamah, a private family altar. Private altars were permissible at that time, of course, but here the Torah is referring to someone who brings to a private altar one of those sacrifices which should be offered only at the national atar at Shiloh. Times change, and we change with them. (Lavon 154) Similarly, Sorotzkin understands the verse in Deuteronomy 12: 23, ‘Only be strong not to eat the blood’ as referencing blood libels in addition to the typical explanation of the verse, which refers to simply not partaking of the lifeblood of an animal. As part of his commentary, he writes: A Jew has a “face-to-face” battle with blood, to the point where, if he finds a speck of blood in the egg, he throws away the entire egg. Yet, even though the gentiles see how Jews are repelled by any sort of blood, they do not hesitate, nor do they feel the slightest shame, to bring “blood accusations” against us. This battle, too (an attack from behind) must be fought by us, by convincing just-minded people among the nations that such accusations are groundless. It could be that this kind of ‘blood,’ too, is included in the Torah’s dictum: “Only be strong not to eat the blood,” and that the Torah is encouraging us to remember that with the merit of this “it will be well with you and with your children after you” forever, and the gentiles who spilled your blood will perish. (Lavon 161) Could there be a more apropos understanding of the verse in the light of the recent horror that was the Holocaust? When Sorotzkin looked at this verse, he saw it with eyes that had witnessed the mass spilling of Jewish blood and therefore sought to find places where God promised to avenge this loss. In Deuteronomy 13:4, R’ Sorotzkin once again makes use of explanations gleaned from the times in which he lived. He elucidates the verse ‘Do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for the Lord, your God, is testing you’ in the following light: This verse was used by the community of converts that flourished in the time of the Czars along the shores of the Caspian Sea, to refute the priests sent by the Russian government to attempt their return to the Christian fold—Their fathers had been Christians for centuries, but suddenly they had seized upon the idea of converting to , owing to their habit of constantly reading Scripture on the Christian holidays.—The priests began to tell them all of the signs and wonders that the man the Christians worship had done, and asked them, ‘Was this not enough to warrant believing in his prophetic message?” But one of the elders answered that this man’s prophecy was based upon the Torah of Moses, and there is written, “If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder…Do not hearken to the words of that prophet…for the Lord, your God, is testing you.” In that case, what use are the signs and wonders that this man showed, seeing as God Himself has warned us not to listen to such a prophet no matter what wonders he performs? (I heard this from the elders of a group of converts when I was in Tzeritzin, now called Stalingrad, visiting my brother, the Gaon R’ Yoel zt”l who was the Rav there and afterwards in Stoipce.) (Lavon 167) Thus, rather than offering an explanation of the plain meaning of the words, R’ Sorotzkin tells an anecdote that his readers will appreciate and which will demonstrate the real-life applicability of these verses. Sorotzkin constantly sprinkles these anecdotes or references to modern times throughout his commentary. In his understanding of Deuteronomy 13: 7 to the words ‘Who is like your own soul’ he explains that the person being referenced here is one’s father. The father was not listed first in the passage since it was not normal in those times for the father to persuade the son to become an idolater. However, laments R’ Zalman Sorotzkin, “In that case, what can we say about some fathers in our times, who hand their sons over to missionaries? This is a disaster that even the Torah chose not to write out explicitly, only indirectly” (Lavon 169). In his understanding, comparison with and appeal to modernity, Sorotzkin is able to make his commentary that much more meaningful and more pertinent to his audience. For example, when offering his explanation of the verse ‘And you will be completely joyous’ in Deuteronomy 16:15, he notices that the word ach also appears in another place, namely the verse ‘Only [ach] Noah survived’ (Genesis 7:23). In that case, the sages understood this to mean that ‘even he was coughing up blood because of the cold [in the Ark]’ (Lavon 199). Posits R’ Sorotzkin, “The use of the same word indicates a link between the two verses. We can learn here that even in times of trouble, when Israel is ‘coughing up blood,’ we are commanded to rejoice in our festival” (Lavon 199). As someone who knew what trouble meant, having lost the majority of his family to the Holocaust but still determined to serve and appreciate God with a full and joyous heart, Sorotzkin’s words are particularly resonant. Does Sorotzkin’s commentary aid in understanding the plain sense of the biblical text? This changes verse by verse. Sometimes Sorotzkin is citing Midrash or drawing grand conclusions through comparing various texts. At other times, he focuses on the literal meaning of the text and the reason for this rendering. However, on a whole, his commentary is more story-driven and thus filled with anecdotes, explanations, lessons, derivations and colorful characterization, than a dry analysis of wording and phraseology. If Sorotzkin is interested in the literal meaning of the verse, it is generally due to the lesson he wishes to derive from it.[5] His Impact R’ Zalman Sorotzkin’s stated goal in writing his work was to create a commentary that would be accessible to all and penetrate the hearts of many different sorts of people. For this reason, whether he is carefully analyzing a literary tract, making assumptions about the psychological underpinnings of various characters, utilizing comparisons to shed light upon particular differences or similarities between characters or reading the text with fresh, modern eyes, he works these techniques and insights into his commentary. As an exegete, his commentary is refreshing due to its being so varied. Rather than adopting one methodological perspective and consistently following it, Sorotzkin chose to act as a dilettante, dabbling in many different methods of analysis. In this way, he pays homage to the many different rabbis and sages who have lived over the centuries, working their contributions into his own understanding of the text while simultaneously, at times, differing from them due to his appeal to modern context. When it comes to the question of what kind of impact Sorotzkin has made upon subsequent commentary on Deuteronomy or the Jewish exegetical world at large, it is difficult to answer. On the one hand, there does not seem to be a well-known definitive or authoritative biography of R’ Zalman Sorotzkin, encyclopedia entries or other official recognition of him. He is not cited by other commentators to the text or used as an authoritative arbiter of disputes. On the other hand, he passed away recently, in 1966. A century hasn’t passed since his death. There is still time for his impact upon exegesis to grow and his words to spread. The very fact that his commentary upon the Torah has been translated into English by Artscroll means that this publishing house has made it accessible to many different people and thus he can still affect the understanding that many have of the text. Especially in our modern society, where Torah learning is institutionalized and often occurs in the classroom as opposed to on one’s own,[6] there is hope that slowly but surely, R’ Zalman Sorotzkin’s ideas and creativity will spread. As his commentary is aimed at the general populace in addition to scholars, and since it contains all manner of innovative ideas, one would think its appeal should be more widespread than it currently is. Unfortunately, as of now his work appears relatively undiscovered. Hopefully, as time progresses, this will change and the man who set out to document the novel insights of his son and students, properly use the breadth of knowledge his rebbe had afforded him, and speak to the times will be recognized as the forward-thinking and warm individual that he was. Works Cited Anonymous. Rabi Zalman Sorotsḳin : …[le-yom Ha-zikaron Ha-rishon…]. Yerushalayim : [Merkaz Ha-ḥinukh Ha-ʻatsmaʼi Be-Erets Yiśraʼel], 1967. Print. Lavon, Yaakov, Trans. Sorotzkin, Zalman. Insights in the Torah: Devarim. Vol. 5. Artscroll Mesorah, 1994. Print. Sefer Bereishis … Min Ḥamishah ḥumshe Torah : ʻim Targum Onḳelos U-ferush Rashi, Baʻal Ha-Ṭurim, ʻIḳar śifte ḥakhamim ṿe-Toldot Aharon ; ʻim Perush Oznayim La-Torah / Me-et Zalman B. Ha-g. Ha-ts. Bentsiyon Sorotsḳin. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Mekhon Ha- deʻah ṿeha-dib, 2005. Print. Sefer Devarim … Min Ḥamishah ḥumshe Torah : ʻim Targum Onḳelos U-ferush Rashi, Baʻal Ha-Ṭurim, ʻIḳar śifte ḥakhamim ṿe-Toldot Aharon ; ʻim Perush Oznayim La-Torah / Me-et Zalman B. Ha-g. Ha-ts. Bentsiyon Sorotsḳin. Vol. 5. Jerusalem: Mekhon Ha- deʻah ṿeha-dib, 2005. Print. Sofer, D. “Rav Zalman Sorotzkin ZT”L: One of Chareidi Jewry’s Main Helmsmen.”Yated Neeman [Monsey]. Tzemach Dovid. Web. 4 May 2010. . [1] At this point, R’ Zalman Sorotzkin became good friends with the Chazon Ish. He noted that his wife “rented an apartment with three rooms” (Sofer) and the Chazon Ish rented one of the rooms from her. [2] Rabbi Sorotzkin felt that there should be no discrimination between priests and rabbis; both of them were clergymen and members of the faith. Thus, when asked by a war minister as to how he could countenance trying to allow healthy young men to evade their lawful obligation to serve in the army, he explained that it was only logical to expect fair and equal treatment. (Sofer) [3] In The World that Was America 1900-1945 – Transmitting the Torah Legacy to America by Rabbi A. Leib Scheinbaum, the situation is explained as follows: Hatzalas Nefashos Supersedes Shabbos The roshei yeshiva who had escaped to Vilna cabled Rabbi . They informed him of the dire need to immediately raise $50,000, to help the rebbeim and talmidim from the various yeshivas escape imminent death at the hands of the Russians, if the visas and the permits for the trans-Siberian trip from Vilna to Vladivostok could not be purchased. Many gedolim, including Rabbi , had escaped to the Vilna area. At this time their lives were endangered. Despite months of work on an escape plan, the Vaad was unsuccessful. Now it aappeared that there was a viable solution. All that was necessary was the cash. The gedolim in America- Rabbi , Rabbi Shlomo Heiman and Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz- considered this a matter of pikuach nefesh (a life and death situation), and as such it superseded even Shabbos. Consequently, on a Shabbos in November 1940, Rabbi Sender Linchner, Rabbi Boruch Kaplan and Irving Bunim traveled by taxi throughout the Flatbush section of Brooklyn raising money, because time was of the essence. With the help of the Almighty, they were successful in raising $45,000 and the Joint released the money- adding the $5000 deficit- to Vilna. Miraculously the rebbeim and talmidim were rescued! Among the rescued gedolim were the Amshenover Rebbe, Rabbi Shimon Sholom Kalish, Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin, the Lutsker Rav, Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Finkel, Rosh HaYeshiva of the Mirrer Yeshiva and the son of the famed Rabbi (the Alter of Slobodka) who went to Palestine; the Modzitzer Rebbe; Rabbi Reuven Grozovsky, the Kaminetzer ; Rabbi Avraham Jofen, the Novardoker Rosh Yeshiva who came to the United States; and Rabbi Yechezkel Levenstein, mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva who went to Shanghai. (82)

[4] In an amusing exchange, the minister of education once spoke to R’ Sorotzkin and inquired, “Why do you have to split off the government network? Why should it bother you if we supervise your curriculum?” R’ Sorotzkin responded, “Would you ever expect a person like me to supervise your secular schools? Can a person supervise something that he virulently opposes?” (Sofer) [5] For example, when Sorotzkin comments to Deuteronomy 22:7 ‘So that it will be good for you and will prolong your days’ he focuses upon the fact that longevity is promised both by the commandment of sending away the mother bird and also by honoring one’s parents. He questions why this is so (seeking to understand the plain sense of the verse) and explains: It is because the two are related. The mother bird must be sent away free, because rather than escape and save herself when her nest is approached by humans, she risks her life out of love for her young. The Torah, therefore, forbids us to seize her and thereby exploit her meritorious behavior. (It is permissible to catch her the normal way, with a snare [Chullin 141b]). The two commandments, then, have a common element of respect for one’s parents who are even willing to endanger themselves to raise their children and preserve the species. Honoring one’s parents may seem to us the gravest of obligations, and shiluach hakein the slightest, but that is only because of our superficial view of things. In fact, deeper reflection can show us that shiluach hakein is actually a graver matter than honoring one’s parents. Consider, one who honors his parents “repays” them, albeit minimally, for all they do for him until he reaches maturity and independence. However, if the same person should happen to find a bird’s nest, he may not take the mother, even if she actually belongs to him and fled from his hatchery, and even if she is nesting on his property. Although this bird has never benefited him in the least he is forbidden to take her simply because she is a mother who is raising her children. He personally gains nothing from her devoted child-rearing, yet must still restrain himself. He will surely find this difficult, though no such difficulty exists with honoring his parents. Therefore this mitzvah shares the same reward with honoring parents. (Lavon 264) Thus Sorotzkin is uninterested in looking at the plain sense of the verse for its own sake but is interested in noting it/ focusing on particular phrasing in terms of the lessons that can be learned from the text. [6] Indeed, I learned of R’ Zalman Sorotzkin’s writings in the context of the classroom, as did a friend of mine who has also studied his works. I learned about Aznayim L’Torah from Rebbetzin Sarah Greer, who utilized it when teaching her classes at Stern College for Women. My friend heard about it via the Rosh Yeshiva at his yeshiva in Israel, or as he put it, “I had a rebbe in Shana Bet who I used to learn Parsha with- and he always quoted him.”

An Incident of “Pilegesh B’Givah” in 19th Century

AN INCIDENT OF “PILEGESH B’GIVAH” IN 19TH CENTURY GERMANY by Eli Genauer I recently purchased an antique Hebrew book for less than the price of a dinner at a moderately priced restaurant. This particular edition is what some would call a “common” — meaning it is the 36th edition (the fourth edition of a revised version) of this book and it was printed in the mid-19th century. Generally, the market does not assign a high price for books like these, but they can be a treasure trove of knowledge and information. The work is Tikkun Shlomo and is primarily focused on the Shabbos liturgy. I reproduced the title page: Many will no doubt recognize the name of the compiler, Shlomo and”קהלת שלמה“ Zalman London (1661-1748) who wrote the book that it was reprinted thirty times in the next 200 years. Tikkun Shlomo was first published in Amsterdam by Dr. Naftali Hertz HaLevi in 1733. Dr. Levi published many a storied book, including the first edition of Mesilat Yesharim and the edition of the Shu”t HaTashbetz that is alleged (erroneously) to have been cosigned to flames. According to Friedberg, when Dr. Levi published the Tikun Shlomo, not much else was being published in Amsterdam due to the effect of the Thirty-Year War.[1] The Tikkun Shlomo was very popular, going through almost 40 editions by the late 19th century. Heidenheim expanded this work in 1835, and the edition I purchased was the fourth Heidenheim edition (two of the three were published in Roedelheim and the other in Lemberg). Things get off to a wonderful start in this book with the Hakdamah which is indicated to come from the third edition. In it, the unnamed editor pays tribute to his mentor Wolf Heidenheim Z”L and maintains that he has followed in his footsteps in all matters because “anyone who follows him will not err”. The editor only refers to himself at the end of the Hakdamah as “HaTzair”, but he leaves us an unmistakable hint as to his identity. Before we get to that, let us see what else he includes in this “Hakdamah” ויהי מימים,ויקם עוד בּישׂראל פּורץ גדר,וישׁחת דברים נעימים, ויוסף עוד להרוס חומת שׂפת עבר ולדבּר תועה אשר לא כּדת. כּי פּרץ מצפון בא בא, ותפתח הרעה, וידפיס אישׁ אחד את המחזורים ב׳האננאפער׳, ויעבור חק, ויהפוך וישׁנה מדעתו את דברי התפילות ופיוטים, ויעקש ויעקל מאוד כמעט בכל דף ודף, ותהי זמירת ישׂראל בידו מעין משחת ומקור נרפשׁ, אשה יפה וסרת טעם, כּי שנה את טעמה ויתעמר בה וימכרה בּכּסף, .וכן לא יעשׂה He takes great offense to a certain Machzor printed by “one man”. The Machzor to which he referring to is known as “Ordnung der Oeffentlichen Andacht für die Sabbath und Festtage des Ganzen Jahres, nach dem Gebrauche des Neuen Tempel-Vereins”, otherwise known as “Seder ha-‘Abodah, Minhag Ḳehal Bayit Ḥadash” printed in (not Hanover) in 1819. Two editors are listed: Seckel Isaac Fraenkel and Meyer Israel Bresslau. It was the new prayer book of the Hamburg Reform Temple dedicated in 1818. To paraphrase what he writes about this effort: “ a great evil has descended from the north, one that has been perpetrated by a man who published Machzorim in the city of Hanover ( Hamburg ). In his hands, the prayers, which are like a beautiful woman , are now left with no personality. His purpose was to destroy the , the prayers as we know them, and Judaism itself.”

He continues by writing that he has authored a work Zichron Livnei Yisroel ( Altona 1819) in which he lays out his war against these Machzorim.[2] The title incorporates this explanation: זה ימים יצא בדפוס קונטרס מיוחד לתפילת ערבית ושחרית לשבת, ומעתיקי תפלה הזאת עברו גבול אשר גבלו הראשונים, גרעו והוסיפו כחפץ לבבם … חלילה … לשנות מסדר תפלתינו / … דברי … עקיבא בר”א ברעסלויא, ראב”ד פה ק”ק אלטונא This was Wertheimer (1778-1835), the Rav of Altona, Germany, today part of the city of Hamburg. He wrote “Zichron Livnei Yisroel” and was the editor of our edition of “Tikun Shlomo”. His opposition to the new Reform prayer service is noted in a book called “Shnos Dor V’Dor” printed in Jerusalem by Artscroll/Mesorah in 2004. It records the following that occurred in 1819 which coincides with the printing of his book “Zichron Livnei Yisroel”: בשנת תקע״ט, עוד קודם להתמנורנו, בקום המחדשים ״אנשי ההיכל״ הרפורמי דהמבורג לשנות את סדרי התפילה היה הוא הראשון אשר יצא .כנגדם והזהיר את כל הקהילות סביבות אלטונא מפניהם Continuing in the Hakdamah to Tikun Shlomo, we find that Rav Wertheimer has launched a campaign against the reformers by adding that he has sent this out broadside everywhere to warn others of this assault on tradition. He does this brilliantly by paraphrasing a Pasuk in Tanach ( Shoftim 20:6) which deals with the tragic story of “Pilegesh B’Givah” an incident which almost tore the Jewish people apart. וָאֹחֵז בְּפִילַגְשִׁי, וָאֲנַתְּחֶהָ, :The Pasuk reads וָאֲשַׁלְּחֶהָ, בְּכָל-שְׂדֵה נַחֲלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי עָשׂוּ .זִמָּה וּנְבָלָה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל His paraphrase reads: ואוחז בפּילגשׁו ואנתחה ואשׁלחה בכל גבול ישׂראל, למען יראו זקני עם וקציניו, והסירו גם את המכשלה הזאת מקרבּם The full text of the broadside was published in Dukes, AW”H leMoshav, Cracow: 1903, 104-05. Additionally, the National Library of Israel has a copy (perhaps that of Israel Mehlman, see his catalog Ginzei Yisrael, no. 1743). The broadside is signed, Akiva br”a Bresslau without additional identifiers, i.e. the son of Avigdor Wertheimer. As Dukes notes, Graetz mistakenly attributed this work to a different Akiva, Akiva Eiger. But he was not the only one to publish against the Hamburg Temple and its prayer book in Altona that year. The work, Eleh Divrei ha-Brit, was also published in Altona in 1819 and it contains, among others, the position of the Hatam Sofer. The battle was waged by both sides, and Meyer Israel Bresslau, one of the editors of the Hamburg prayer book, that same year responded with Herev Nokmat (available onlinehere ). The other editor, Fraenkel, in the prayerbook includes a defense of the changes[3]. As with many editors of Siddurim, Rav Wertheimer extols the exactness of his edition, claiming that he has fixed many of the errors that have crept into previous Siddurim. Specifically, he addresses the text of Mishnayos Shabbos which appeared in many Siddurim and which he has carefully edited especially when it comes to the “Nekudos”.

He continues and states that when it comes to words of foreign origin, such as in Greek, Latin or Arabic, he has also made sure that the “Nekudos” are correct reflecting the proper pronunciation in those languages. Unfortunately this is not a simple task and this example will illustrate the difficulty in doing so. The laws of what a woman may or may not carry outside on Shabbos are discussed in Shabbos 6:3. Among the items prohibited is something called a “Tzlochis Shel Palyiton”, a flask of “Palyiton.” Jastrow defines this word as “an ointment or oil prepared from the leaves of spikenard”. He adds that its origin is the Latin word “foliatum”. The Latin Lexicon website spells this word foliātum and gives the exact same definition. So how should this Latin word be spelled in Hebrew? Rav Wertheimer indicates that it should be pronounced something like “Folia’tone”which is pretty close to the Latin word except for there being an “n” sound at the end of the word instead of the “m” sound. I have a Mishnayos printed in Pisa during the same time period (1797) which makes it look more like “Pal’yi’tone”:

Two very old manuscripts of the Mishneh shed some light on how the word was originally spelled. One of the most famous is known as Codex Kaufmann ( MS Kaufmann A 50) which was written in 10th or 11th century Palestine. There we find the word looking more like “Pil’Ya’Tome”, with an “m” sound at the end: The Parma manuscript referred to as MS Parma, De Rossi 138 written in 1073 has it the same as Kaufmann. In recently printed Mishnayos such as from Feldheim, Artscroll, Steinsaltz, and Blackman, the word is spelled with either a Patach ,Chirik, or “Shva” under the ”פלייטון“ which looks more like Rav Wertheiner’s ,”פולייטון“ Peh”, or“ rendering. One thing is clear- it is sometimes very difficult to write a foreign word with Hebrew letters and vowels, and it is also difficult to ascertain which version is “correct”. Another wonderful aspect to the book that I bought was learning about the man whose name is embossed on the front יוסף אשר בן כ״ה (כבוד הרב) משה פאלאק cover. He is listed as We know a bit about Yosef Asher Pollock from some of the other books and manuscripts he owned. The following two citations are from the online catalogue of the Israel National Library: 1. A manuscript written in the 19th century by Chaim ben Yaakov Abolofia. .תקנות קהלת איזמיר Los Angeles – University of California 960 bx. 1.9 ותו הספר: “מספרי יוסף אשר פאלאק ז”ל” משנת תרפ”ה. From this record we know that he had passed away before 1925 and that the manuscript is now in Los Angeles.

2. A manuscript written in the 18th century .ספר הכונות (חלק שבת ומועדים) Amsterdam – Universiteitsbibliotheek MS Rosenthal 567 בראשו תו ספר של הבעלים “יוסף אשר פאלאק This rare manuscript has been scanned and is available online. The first page looks like this:

From this one we also learn quite a bit more about Yosef Asher Pollock because it contains this bookplate on the inside front cover We surmise from here that this was not the only book he had that was donated, as someone went to a lot of trouble composing and printing such a heartfelt donation plate. (“ Yosef is not here, nor is Shimon”) The year the bookplate was printed was 5693(1933). There is also a stern warning that since this is a gift, it may never be sold by the recipient.

The history of the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana in Amsterdam is also interesting, especially how the collection of Judaica survived the Nazi occupation. The library’s website notes the following: “The Germans closed the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana in the summer of 1941 and transported part of the collection to Germany, where it was earmarked for Rosenberg’s ‘Institut zur Erforschung der Judenfrage’. Happily, these plans were thwarted with the German capitulation. Most of the boxes of books were in storage in Hungen, near Frankfurt am Main, where they were found and shipped back to Amsterdam. But the curator and his assistant together with their families had also been deported-for them there was no return” Finally, it seems clear to me that my book was also a gift never to be sold. I surmise this from the fact that the name of Yosef Asher Pollack is beautifully embossed on the front cover of the , making it unnecessary to have an ownership bookplate inside the Siddur.

Nevertheless, on the inside front cover there is a rectangular remnant of a bookplate which has been torn off. Coincidentally, its size exactly matches the bookplate of the manuscript donated to the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, which contained the admonition of not selling the book. Tearing off this “warning label” enabled the book to be sold, something that most likely happened over time to many books that were donated to libraries. ______[1] Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography, Antwerp: 1937, 49. Although Dr. Levi’s production may have slowed, the bases for Freidberg’s assertion that Amsterdam publishing was affected by the Thrity-Year War is uncertain. During the 18th century, production of Hebrew books in Amsterdam ranges from 82 to a high of 246 per decade. The 1730s, the period that Tikkun Shlomo was published, is in the mid-range of those two extremes, with 145 books published between 1730-39. [2] This work is a single sheet broadside and begins with Moda’ah raba . . . Zikhron Le-veni Yisrael. [3] For a summary of his arguments, see Petuchowski, Prayerbook Reform in Europe, New York, NY: 1968, 53-54.

David Sassoon, Bibliophile Par Excellence

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

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

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

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

David Sassoon spent ten years negotiating to buy the Farchi Bible, a fourteenth century beautifully calligraphed and illuminated Tanach which contained over 1000 pages and more than 350 illustrations. It took seventeen years for Elisha Crescas of Provence to complete it, which he did in 1383. The name of the Bible is derived from the fact that it once belonged to the wealthy Syrian Farchi family that had served as bankers and treasury officials for the Turkish governors. Chaim Farchi, who was involved with Jazzar Pasha in the defense of Acre against Napoleon in 1799 was the Sefer’s owner. Almost two decades later, an orphan Muslim that Chaim Farchi helped raise and get installed as a Turkish leader betrayed his wealthy Jewish benefactor. On Erev Rosh Chodesh (August, 1817), after having fasted all day, soldiers suddenly entered his apartment and read him his death-warrant, [Chaim Farchi was accused among other transgressions of building a shul higher than the highest Mosque in Acre] and was executed. The Farchi Bible then came into the possession of the British Consul in Damascus and was only returned to the family a century later. Unique about this Bible was that it contained the names of many Biblical women that are not mentioned in the Torah but in Rabbinic writings such as the names of the wives ofKayin, Hevel, Shet, Chanoch and Metushelach etc.[11] It also contains the rules of Vocalization and Masoretic notes from Ben Asher’s Dikdukei Ha’Teamim. The interesting illustrations which do not show any human figures include Noah’s ark, the Mishkan and of the city of Yericho with seven walls. In 1902, a year after he moved to London with his mother and sister, Dovid Sassoon purchased in Egypt several manuscripts that had been discovered in the CairoGeniza six years earlier. These included an extremely early fragment of the Rambam’s which contained the Rambam’s own glosses and Rabbi Saadiah Gaon’s Tafsir, a Judeo-Arabic translation on Chumash Bamidbar. The late Rabbi Dr. Tzi M. Rabinowicz, son of the previous Biale Rebbe and author of more than 10 books including the Encyclopedia of Hassidism visited the Sassoon library in 1966 and contributed an article at that time entitled “The Sassoon Treasures” to Jewish Life magazine.[12] He stated that when visiting the library of Rabbi Solomon David Sassoon, (David was no longer alive and the library seems to have passed on to his son Shlomo) he thought of the pasuk “Shal Naaleich me’al raglecha …. Put off thy shoes from off thy feet for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” He describes it as the world’s greatest private collection of priceless Sifrei Torah, incunabula, manuscripts and unpublished writings that cover a period of nearly a thousand years. He writes that a student of art can feast his eyes on exquisitely illuminated manuscripts, Genizah fragments, Machzorim, Haggadoth, Ketuboth and important documents. David Sassoon wrote a diary in Hebrew entitled Massaei Bavel[13] when he travelled in 1910 with his mother and sister Mazel Tov, from Bombay to Basra stopping off at Baghdad. The following is an English translation of an excerpt of his dairy by Rabbi Aharon Bassous: Tuesday Sept. 20 At 7:00 am we reached AL Qurna where the Tigris and Euphrates unite. Tradition has it that the Garden of Eden was here! We rested for 10 minutes. Continuing on our journey to Baghdad we passed in the afternoon a building which is traditionally the grave of Ezra HaSofer or Al Ezair in Arabic. On the outside the grave looks like the dome of a mosque and is covered with glazed blue tiles. We went inside to visit. On entering the town we were in a large chamber leading to the and grave. Before entering the building we were told to remove our shoes. On top of the grave is a large tomb made from wood. Every Jewish visitor lights a lamp and says: I am lighting this lamp in honor of our master Ezra the scribe, after which he circles the grave and kisses it. Many give money for someone to bless them at the grave. Even non-Jews, come there to pray. Several days earlier he wrote that while in Basra he was able to purchase some manuscripts but not old ones. One of them called Megillat Paras was read every year on the 2nd day of Nisan because a of great miracle that happened at Basra. A very important acquisition David Sassoon made in Sept. 1923 was the Diwan of Shmuel HaNagid which published with an introduction by Sasson in 1924. The manuscript which Sassoon acquired in Aleppo (Aram Tzova), was copied in 1584-1585 by an Italian rabbi Tam Ben Gedaliah ibn Yachya. It contained 1743 poems, of which 1500 were previously unknown. In the manuscript is a poem about the earthquake and eclipse of the year 1047 and a eulogy on the death of the Gaon Hai ben David (939-1038) the last gaon of Pumbeditha. In Cecil Roth: Historian Without Tears[14] the late Irene Roth writes about David Sasson that he was a noted Hebraist and bibliophile and maintained a magnificent library of rare manuscripts which was always open to her husband, the Oxford Historian. Incidentally Cecil Roth, in his book “The Sassoon Dynasty,” calls David Sassoon a scholar and writer of no mean distinction. David Sasson also authored The History of the Jews of Baghdad.[15] In addition to constantly expanding his library he would help his mother Flora answer thousands of letters from all over the world requesting tzedkaka for Hachnasas Kallah, Yeshivos, Pidyon Shevuyim, and other Jewish causes including requests to help print seforim.[16] In the sefer Ohr Elchonon its author A Souraski,[17] writes that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski sent a letter to the Prince (Nagid) David Sassoon that he should organize in London a vaad devoted to the selling of Osiyos for a Sefer Torah in commemoration of the late Chafetz Chaim. David was married to Sarah Selina Prins, the daughter of Moshe Meir Ben Rabbi Eliezer Lippman Prins, a diamond merchant and Talmid Chochom from Amsterdam who also owned a magnificent library. In the Sefer “Parnas LeDoro: Hitkatvut Eliezer Lipman Prinz Im Chachmei Doro” by Meir Herskovics[18] a letter by Rabbi Eliezer Prinz to his grandson David Sassoon, the son- in-law of his eldest son Moshe, he writes that he has difficulty in understanding the commentary of Ramban on Bereishis 2:9, because when he examined different girsaos, a word was spelled differently and it is evident that the scribe made an error. Could David please check his different manuscripts to determine the correct girsa. David Sasson was not only a great Talmid Chochom himself but he hired Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler author of Michtav Eliyahu to learn with his son Solomon in 1928 at the suggestion of Dayan Shmuel Yitzchok Hillman. Rabbi Solomon Sassoon, who continued in his father’s footsteps in collecting seforim, developed into a great Talmid Chochom who turned down the Israeli government twice when it asked him to serve as Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel.[19]

By the time David Sassoon passed away in 1942 he had amassed about 1300 items in his library. Sadly the collection has been dispersed sold at a number of Sotheby auctions, beginning with one in Zurich in 1975. A New York Times article[20] describing the fourth Sassoon manuscript collection in 1994 states that in the past decade the sales were due to satisfy the estate’s British tax obligations. Nevertheless, thanks to David Sassoon, universities and libraries around the world can continue to enhance Jewish scholarship through the efforts of David Sassoon. Yehi Zichro Mevorach. Notes: [1] Aaron Souraski, Ohr Elchanan , 2, p. 74. [2] Rosenblum, Jonathan, Rabbi Dessler: The Life and Impact of Rabbi , the Michtav Me’Eliyahu, Mesorah Publications, Artscroll 2000 NY., p 144. [3] Roth, Cecil, The Sassoon Dynasty, Robert Hale Limited, London, 1941 p. 80. [4] Jackson, Stanley, The Sassoons, EP Dutton Inc., NY 1968 p. 30. [5] Ibid. page 2 [6] Breger, Jennifer, “Flora Sassoon” entry in Jewish Women’s Archive. [7] Jackson, p. 104. Also see Introduction to Sotheby Catalogue “Seventy-Six important Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts from the Library of the late David Solomon Sassoon,” London June 21, 1994 .The latter was the fifth Sotheby sale of manuscripts from the collection of David Sassoon, the previous sales took place in Zurich 1975 and1978 and in New York, in 1981 and 1984. [8] Ibid. Jackson, p.105. [9] Rabinowicz, Harry, The Sassoon Treasures, Jewish Life Jan.-Feb. 1966 p.45. [10] Jackson, p.158. [11] David Sassoon, David, Oxford University Press, 1932, p. 6. [12] Shevat-Adar 5726, Jan.-Feb. 1966 issue pp.42-48. [13] Information from his travel diary, was incorporated later in his, A History of the Jews in Baghdad (Letchworth 1949) and this diary was later edited and published in Hebrew by M. Benayahu in 1955, after its author’s death (Massei Bavel, Jerusalem 1955). [14] Cecil Roth: Historian without Tears Sepher, Hermon Press, N.Y., 1982, p. 92 [15] See note 13 [16] See Nachalat Avot: Asufat Genazim MiBeit Mishpachat Sassoon, for a treasure trove of letters soliticing Tzedokoh from many Gedolim. This sefer includes Teshuvot, Michtavim Tefillot and Minhagim and was published by Yad Samuel Franco, 5767, Machon “Ahavat Shalom,” Yerushalayim. [17] p. 74. [18] pp. 411-415. [19] Rav Dessler, pp 145-.146.

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

Book Review: The House of Twenty Thousand Books by Sasha Abramsky

‘The House of Twenty Thousand Books’/ Sasha Abramsky / Halban Publishers (London UK) / 321pp/ GBP 14.95 – easily available from Amazon.uk By Paul Shaviv For many Seforim blog readers, the name ‘Abramsky’ will instantly be associated with the personality of Rav Yechezkel Abramsky (1886-1976), the author of Hazon Yechezkel on the Tosefta. Born in Russia, imprisoned by the Soviets, released in the 1930’s after diplomatic intervention by the U.S. and Britain, he was for years the head of the London before his retirement to Israel. But other readers will also know his son, Chimen (1916-2010), whose life followed a very different path, and was, simultaneously, one of the leading bibliophiles of the Jewish world – and of the Socialist-Marxist world. One of his grandsons, Sasha Abramsky, has written a memoir of his grandfather centred on 5, Hillway – Chimen’s house close to London’s Hampstead Heath (and to Highgate Cemetery, burial place of Karl Marx). Chimen was a bibliophile and scholar, but also an obsessive collector of books, of which 5, Hillway contained an estimated twenty thousand. This book describes the house room by room, and the significance of the books in each one, piled high and crammed into every nook and cranny. Chimen left the with his father. Soon after arrival in London, he made his way to Mandatory (or, Mandatary[1]) Palestine, where he took courses in Jewish history at the Hebrew University.[2] He was already a committed Communist. Returning to London at the outbreak of war, he became a hugely influential member of the Communist party in London. To his grandson’s bewilderment, he was a convinced Stalinist, attributing such anti-Jewish excesses as he was prepared to recognise to Soviet anti- religious, rather than anti-Semitic, sentiment. At the same time, on marriage to Miriam Nirenstein, he entered the family business – ‘Shapiro, Vallentine’, a small Jewish bookshop and publishing company in the East End of London. Over successive years he turned it into a center of rare book dealing, while simultaneously serving the London Jewish community with siddurim, machzorim, barmitzvah presents and other ritual paraphernalia[3]. Chimen, together with other Jewish communists, left the party after 1956 – although, inexplicably, he was one of the last to leave. He turned his energy into an academic career; first as Sotheby’s consultant on Judaica[4], then as a fellow of St Antony’s College Oxford (on the strength of his co-authored book on ‘Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement’, and on the personal recommendation of Isaiah Berlin) and shortly thereafter, at the age of 51, as Reader in Jewish Studies at University College, London. He was appointed Professor at UCL in 1974. In the 1970’s he was one of the first visiting Fellows at the Oxford Institute of Postgraduate Hebrew Studies[5], where he was my teacher of early medieval Jewish history. Chimen was a world-class polymath, with a totally encyclopedic knowledge of manuscripts, books, footnotes, scholars and libraries. His grandson has recorded the history and topography of his household, which functioned as research library, international salon for streams of visitors, and a family home. Every room had its subject area – Judaica, European socialism, Marxiana, art history, philosophy and social studies. Chimen and Miriam had two children – Jenny, later famous as the most senior female executive at the BBC, and Jack (Sasha’s father)[6]. Chimen’s relationship to his Judaism was complex; despite his veneration of his father, he does not appear to have given his own children much of a Jewish education, even though they grew up in a house full of some of the rarest Judaica in private hands. Sasha describes the historians[7], politicians, thinkers and scholars who came to sit at the table of this diminutive, engaging personality with his thick Russian accent, which he never lost. His later years were affected by deteriorating health, and he finally passed away at the age of 93 in 2010. ‘The House of Twenty Thousand Books” is an unusual, affectionate, and admiring memoir[8]. Booklovers will love it, as will anyone who knew the enigmatic subject at the centre of the story. The book is not perfect; far more attention – perhaps a little repetitively – is paid to Chimen’s socialism (and its abandonment) than to his Jewish involvement and scholarship. The author is clearly not on such familiar ground in this latter area, and makes a few mistakes. But it is a labour of love, and a good one at that. Finally, let me leave a bibliographic tantalizer for the readers of the Seforim blog. In 1974, Chimen told me with pride that Gershom Scholem had visited him, and that he had shown Scholem a ‘Hassidic siddur’ from his, Chimen’s collection, “which was earlier than any previously known Hassidic book. Scholem was very excited by this. He demanded that I must publish it!” Did he ever do so? Where is the book now? I have no idea. [1] The correct spelling – See Edward Ullendorff ‘The two Zions’. [2] He never took a degree, which was awarded to him decades later as a prerequisite of his being appointed Professor of Jewish Studies at University College, London. [3] As a teenager beginning to buy Jewish books in the 1960’s, this is where I first met Chimen, He was patient, encouraging, and sold me a number of exquisite and fascinating books – material otherwise unobtainable anywhere else in the UK. He closed the store when he took up his academic career. [4] In later years his bibliographic expertise was applied as adviser to Jack Lunzer in the assembling of the Valmadonna Trust library. [5] Now the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. [6] Jack Abramsky, in the photographs in the book and in the video (see below), bears a very striking resemblance to Shlomo Carlebach…. [7] Shmuel Ettinger, Chimen’s closest friend from his Jerusalem days, passed away suddenly in 5, Hillway while visiting. [8] See also here for a short video about the book, including some video of Chimen. The Pew Report and the Orthodox Community (and Other Assorted Comments), part 2

The Pew Report and the Orthodox Community (and Other Assorted Comments), part 2 by Marc B. Shapiro Continued from here. Returning to the matter of Jewish men and non-Jewish women, it is noteworthy that the Spanish scholar R. Solomon Alami (14th-15th centuries), in his ethical will to his son, specifically warns him to abstain from sexual relations with non-Jewish women.[1] Note how in the following passage he also assumes that Reuben actually had sexual relations with his father’s concubine (an opinion also shared by talmudic sages, though in my experience the alternative view, that he didn’t actually do this, appears to be the standard approach among contemporary darshanim). בבת אל נכר אל תחלל בריתך. היה גבור כארי למשול בתאוותך, תהי צדיק מושל יראת א-להים להטיבך באחריתך. השמר ממר ממות ופרוש מן הזימה. טמאת השם רבת המהומה. וזכור דבר זמרי ורעתו. וחרפת שבטו ברדוף נשיאם תאוותו. הלא אל אלה חטא שלמה מלך ישראל ונחלקה מלכותו. וזכור צדקת יוסף אשר גבר על יצרו ולא נתן מאוויי גבירתו. ותשב באיתן קשתו. עם גודל יופיו ועדונו והוא בבחרותו. והיה זה סיבה לשום במרום מדרגתו. וכל בית אביו חיו בזכותו. ונתנה לו הבכורה ונדחה ראובן בחללו יצועי אביו מבכורתו. כי לא יאות הכבוד לנקשר בזימה בכחשו. An Italian list of takkanot from 1418 also speaks about this problem, that Jewish men thought that there was nothing wrong הנשים הנכריות מותרות :[with having sex with non-Jewish women[2 The fact that the various moralists speak about this .בעיניהם issue shows that it was a real problem. While suggestions were offered to help men overcome sexual temptations, there was a recognition that, as the Talmud, Hullin 11b, states, “There is This .אין אפוטרופוס לעריות ”,no guardian against unchastity principle is quoted by R. Joseph Karo in Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 22:15.[3] Yet interestingly enough, in R. Karo’s Magid Meisharim[4] he is told that since he is entirely involved with service of God he cannot be seduced even by a naked woman. מאחר שלבך תמיד אינו מהרהר אלא בעבודתי אפילו תפגע באשה ערומה לא תבוא לידי חטא We know that there were some who argued that it was better for men to use Jewish (single) prostitutes so that they not come to having sex with married women or engage in homosexual acts.[5] (I am referring to places where Jews could not avail themselves of non-Jewish prostitutes, as the punishment for this was often execution.) R. Moses Hagiz[6] argues against this position, stating that we do not permit a lesser offense to prevent one from violating a more severe offense. He even calls this approach hukot ha-goyim. והלכו בחוקת הגיום שזו היא טענת פטור אצלם אכן אנו בני ישראל הקדושים כשהשני איסורים הם מדאורייתא או תרי דרבנן אין לנו להתיר הא’ מחשש שלא יבא לעשות האחר This passage is quoted by R. Isaac Lampronte, Pahad Yitzhak, s.v. boel aramit. He then adds that he heard from a hakham that sex with a Jewish prostitute is worse than sex with a non-Jew because of the possibility that that one will violate the niddah prohibition. דיכול לבוא לאיסור נדה שהיא בכרת Notice how he doesn’t say that one will certainly violate the niddah prohibition, only that it is a possibility. What this means is that even the Jewish prostitutes were expected to go to the mikveh, but that one can’t assume that they would indeed do so, and this explains why sex with a non-Jewish woman is preferable.[7] But he adds that this should not be said publicly or to an ignorant person as this knowledge could lead men to have sex with non-Jews since they will mistakenly conclude that the prohibition is not so serious. אין אומרים דבר זה בפרהסיא או בפני עם הארץ, כדי שלא ינהגו פריצות בביאות גויות. What we are discussing was not simply theoretical since R. Isaac Arama, writing in fifteenth-century Spain, tells us that not (שופטי ישראל) not only did the Jewish community leaders communities [קצת)[take prostitution seriously, but in a few (8 Jewish prostitutes were welcomed and even supported with Jewish communal funds (!).[9] This was done as the prostitutes were thought to be performing a public service, since without them it was thought that men would be led to have sex with married women or non-Jewish women (which as mentioned already could lead to execution). From a responsum of R. Judah ben Asher,[10] we see that even in an earlier era this point had been made with regard to “loose women” (and was rejected by R. Judah who thought it was better to have sex with a non-Jewish woman for whom the niddah prohibition did not apply): ומוטב שיסתכנו הגופים מן הנפשות Arama tells us that on different occasions he argued with the which I assume means גדוליהם communal leaders, and also before their rabbis, that it is one thing if someone commits a sin in private. In such a case, Arama would probably agree that it would be better for a man to have sex with a Jewish prostitute than with a with a non-Jew. (It must be that these prostitutes went to the mikveh, as Arama doesn’t mention anything about the niddah prohibition.) But Arama is firm that it is absolutely forbidden for the community – and he includes in showing that the rabbis were complicit – to בתי דיניהם this countenance any sin whatsoever, in this case welcoming in Jewish prostitutes, even if this strict stance leads to people committing greater sins or being executed by the non-Jews.[11] R. Isaac Bar Sheshet (Rivash) had earlier also testified to the fact that the “gedolei ha-dor” had acquiesced to the existence of Jewish prostitutes in order to prevent men from visiting non-Jewish women, with all the dangers this entailed.[12] Contrary to Avraham Grossman,[13] the Rivash is not saying that this is what the gedolei“ ha-dor” should do when faced with such a circumstance. Rather, he is decrying what they did. I am curious to hear if readers agree with me. Here are the words of the Rivash: והרמב”ן ז”ל כתב בפ’ התורה שהיא אזהרה לב”ד שלא יניחו בנות ישראל להפקיר עצמן לישב בעינים על הדרך או בקובה של זונות לזנות לכל יבא. בואו ונצווח על דורנו שאין דומה יפה, וגדולי הדור העלם יעלימו את עינים פן יכשלו בני פריצי עמנו בנכריות ותצא אש ומצאה קוצים ונאכל גדיש Returning to intermarriage, we see something very interesting in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 39. According to this text (which is paralleled by other midrashim[14]), Jacob’s sons married their sisters. The explanation given is that they did so in order not to marry the local inhabitants: כדי שלא יתחתנו בעמי הארצות This is quite an incredible assertion, since incest is forbidden under the Noahide code. If there were no eligible marriage partners, one would have expected Jacob’s sons not to marry at all rather than marrying their sisters. R. David Luria, in his commentary on the passage, does not even deal with this problem, instead noting that elsewhere in one finds that Jacob’s sons did marry the local women. (For some reason, R. Luria’s edition does not include which comes right after ,כדי שלא יתחנתו בעמי הארצות the words the text stating that Jacob’s sons married their sisters. This does not appear to be an act of censorship, since the real issue is not the explanation for their marriages, but the incestuous marriages themselves, and this is still found in R. Luria’s edition.) The Tosafists have a simple response to this problem: Since the Torah had not yet been given Jacob’s sons only observed what they wanted.[15] מאחר שלא נצטוו על התורה אע”פ שידעוה ברוה”ק מה שהיו רוצין היו מקיימין ומה שלא היו רוצין היו מניחין. Nahmanides, Commentary to Gen. 38:2, assumes that each of the brothers married one of the twins of the other brothers, but not their own twins. Furthermore, no one actually married a complete sister, i.e., sons of Leah did not marry daughters of Leah. Thus, they did not violate Noahide Law. (I think this is probably also what the Tosafists assumed in the passage mentioned above.) While Nahmanides’ understanding works with some of the midrashim, it cannot be fit into the language of Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 36, which states explicitly that each son was born together with his future wife: וכולן נולדו זווגן עמם חוץ מיוסף שלא נולדה זווגה עמו Furthermore, Bereshit Rabbah 80 states that Simeon married Dinah, and she was his sister from the same mother. It is precisely in order to answer this problem that a Tosafist cites the [16] that Dinah was actually first impregnated in Rachel, and God later transferred her to Leah, meaning that Simeon and Dinah were really not from the same mother.[17] (Many have pointed out that this has implications to the debate about the status of children born from surrogate mothers.[18]) The Maharal explains that the situation of the brothers marrying their sisters was an exceptional case, since if they did not marry them the only available marriage partners would have been pagan women.[19] As the Maharal notes, the parallel is to the sons of Adam who were permitted to marry their sisters since there was no one else for them to marry. This permission to marry their sisters was known to Jacob through ruah ha-kodesh, and the Maharal adds that one should not think that this contradicts the Torah, “for the one who gave the Torah forbade [it] and the one who gave the Torah [also] permitted [it].” In other words, God is the source of the law so he can choose to alter it if he chooses. This approach can also explain the story of the akedah which troubles so many. If the reason not to murder is because God says so, then God can, if He wishes, permit murder in certain cases. I don’t want to get into the issue of Natural Law and the Euthyphro problem. Suffice it to say that most people would assume that the prohibition against incest is indeed part of Natural Law and not simply because God forbids it. Yet it must be noted that 58b records a view that the Noahide code does not forbid marriage between brothers and sisters. According to Sanhedrin 58b, and this is followed by pretty much all commentators and halakhists, a non-Jew is permitted to marry his daughter. See alsoMishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 9:5.[20] That at least some of the prohibitions on incest are not part of Natural Law would also seem to be a necessary conclusion of the Sifrei,[21] which states that the Children of Israel were driven to tears when Moses told them that they could no longer marry their sisters (from their fathers).[22] וישמע משה את העם בוכה למשפחותיו . . . שהיו ישראל מצטערים בשעה שאמר להם משה לפרוש מן העריות מלמד שהיה אדם נושא את אחותו ואחות אביו ואחות אמו ובשעה שאמר להם משה לפרוש מן העריות היו מצטערים. R. Ari Chwat has made the following interesting point.[23] The fact that the Sages state that the sons of Jacob married their sisters, something forbidden under Noahide law, illustrates how important it was for them to show that the brothers did not marry Canaanite women. In order to free them from the stain of intermarriage, the Sages were even prepared to claim that they had incestuous marriages. This shows how bad intermarriage was regarded by them. נראה שכך יש להבין גם את המדרש (פרקי דר’ אליעזר פל”ה [צ”ל ל”ו] וב”ר פ, יא) שבני יעקב נשאו את אחיותיהם, למרות שיש בכך משום האשמתם בגילוי עריות, דבר שאסור אפילו לבני נח מלפני מתן תורה. אלא שרצו חז”ל ללמד זכות על אבותינו עצמם, ולנקותם מעבירת נשואי תערובת, עבירה בעייתית בדורם של חז”ל. כלומר: היות ועבירת נשואי אחיות לא עמדה על סדר יומם של חז”ל, ממילא האשמה זו תפגע בכבודן של אבותינו פחות מאשר להאשימם בנשואי תערובת, מעשה המתאים רק לשפלים ביותר בעם. Regarding intermarriage, take a look at the following fascinating responsum from R. Meir of Rothenburg that appears in Teshuvot Ba’alei ha-, ed. Agus, no. 72 (pp. 152-153).

It begins by referring to the widow of a man “who was not pure”. What does this mean? From the responsum it would appear that this woman was “married” to a non-Jew. Based on the answer, it seems that she was claiming that she had done nothing wrong with this “marriage”, as she had received rabbinic permission, and therefore she should not suffer any stigma.[24] R. Meir tells us that he knew a woman of whom it was said that the rabbis permitted her to have sexual relations with a non-Jew. He also states that he heard that in France the rabbis permitted this for several women. What this appears to mean is that the rabbis permitted the Jewish women to live with non-Jewish men (since the rabbis were certainly not permitting promiscuous sexual relations). Irving Agus reasonably suggests that the reason these “intermarriages” were permitted is that refusal to allow them would have endangered Jewish lives.[25] R. Meir does not accept this permission at all, and points out that the talmudic examples of Jewish women having sexual relations with non-Jews were when they were forced. Yael’s sexual encounter with Sisera was intended to weaken him out so she could then kill him. Following R. Meir’s responsum, there is an additional note, apparently from R. Mordechai ben Hillel, stating that it is not certain that had Esther and Yael consulted with halakhic authorities that they would have been given permission for their actions. The copyist rejects this point, noting that since the actions of Esther and Yael were done in order to save the Jewish people, what they did was certainly permitted. Howewver, one cannot use these cases to also permit other women to have sexual relations with non- Jews. On the general matter of sex, I would like to call readers’ attention to a book that recently appeared. It is called Devar Seter and no author is given. You can see the book here. This book is, as far I know, the most liberal work on the halakhot of sex ever to appear. I am worried that if I get too explicit and explain what I mean by “liberal” that some readers’ internet protection will prevent them from accessing this post. Therefore, I won’t say any more about the book except than I find it interesting that a number of rabbis who praise it only feel comfortable doing so anonymously. Another book on sex recently appeared, this time in English, which also has a very liberal perspective, although it is not focused on halakhah but is a self-help book. It is authored by Rabbi David Ribner and Jennie Rosenfeld and is titledThe Newlywed’s Guide to Physical Intimacy.[26] A reader alerted me to an article on the book available here, and asked if I could comment on the following excerpt. It is widely believed that ultra-Orthodox Jews are so concerned about modesty that they have sex through a hole in a sheet. But this is a total myth, says Ribner: “There has never been a group of Jews anywhere in the world that has advocated having sex through a hole in a sheet. That has never happened. It doesn’t happen today, it never happened in history. It’s not advocated in any text within the Jewish community.” I have no idea if there is anyone today who uses a sheet for sexual intercourse. There is certainly no community that insists on this (not even the Gur Hasidim, whose sexual behavior is extremely ascetic). However, it is simply incorrect to say that this action is not advocated in any text. Usually, when you have a widespread rumor like this, there is some basis for it, even if the original source has been distorted. What is the origin of the idea of sex through a sheet? The Jerusalem Talmud, Yevamot 1:1, states that R. Yose ben Halafta, who performed the levirate marriage with his sister- In case the .דרך סדין בעל :in-law, had sex in this fashion were not clear to readers, R. Baruch ben Isaac דרך סדין words explains in Sefer ha-Terumah, Hilkhot Halitzah (Jerusalem, 1983), p. 46a, that it means that R. Yose ben Halafta made a hole in the sheet[27]: נקב עשה בסדין דרך מקום ביאה This was done so that his personal pleasure be reduced and the focus be on the mitzvah.[28] The Talmud records that he had five children with this woman, and it is not clear if he used the sheet throughout their marriage or only in conceiving the first child (see ha-Edah, ad loc., and also R. Hayyim Kanievsky’s commentary).[29] If this was all we had, it would not be of great significance. All it would show was that one talmudic sage used the “hole in the sheet” method. There is no implication from the passage that anyone else adopted this approach. Yet based on this text, R. Meir of Rothenburg indeed assumed that when it came to levirate marriage this was the general practice among the pious during tannaitic times.[30] ואפי’ חסידים הראשונים דור התנאים כשהיו מיבמין היו בועלין דרך סדין כדמשמע בירושלמי (פ”ק דיבמות ה”א) ר’ יוסי בר’ חלפתא הי’ בועל יבמתו דרך סדין R. Jacob Emden, whose writings include a good deal about sexual matters, assumes that this type ofhasidut is only applicable with levirate marriage, but not with one’s wife.[31] דווקא ביבמה יש מקום לחסידות כזה לא זולת There is also another significant passage, and it comes from the Vilna Gaon. He comments on the following text from the Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 240:8: וי”מ מגלה טפח ומכסה טפח שלא היה ממרק האבר בשעת תשמיש כדי למעט הנאתו The point of this text is that even during sex one should attempt to lessen the pleasure. In his note on this passage, the Gaon ties R. Joseph Karo’s words to what we have just seen in the Jerusalem Talmud. He then states that although one can say that R. Jose ben Halafta acted this way only because he was performing a religious ritual (levirate marriage), nevertheless, “it is also proper to act this way with one’s wife.” In other words, in contrast to what R. Jacob Emden wrote, the Gaon tells us that the practice of sex through a sheet is according to one opinion a valid and even recommended method of lessening sexual pleasure. A well-known talmid hakham who examined this text at my request wrote to me that since the Gaon does not object it implies acceptance, meaning that the Gaon would have approved of the proverbial hole in the sheet. Use of a sheet would appear to be contradicted by the following passage in Ketubot 48a: implies close bodily [שארה] R. Joseph learnt: Her flesh contact, viz., that he must not treat her in the manner of the Persians who perform their conjugal duties in their clothes. This provides support for [a ruling of] R. Huna who laid down that a husband who said, ‘I will not [perform conjugal duties] unless she wears her clothes and I mine’, must divorce her and give her also her ketubah. Yet this text, which rejects the approach of the Persians, is itself opposed by R. who stated: “For three things do I like the Persians: They are temperate in their eating, modest in the privy, and chaste in another matter [i.e., sexual behavior]” (Berakhot 8b).[32] Another interesting point related to sex and seforim is the following. Megillah 13b states: “R. Johanan said: Bigthan and Teresh were two Tarseans and conversed in the Tarsean language. They said: From the day this woman came we have been able to get no sleep. Come, let us put poison in the dish so that he [Ahasuerus] will die.” Bigthan and Teresh couldn’t get any sleep since they could not go to sleep as long as the king was awake. But why was the king not going to sleep? Rashi explains that he found Esther so attractive that he had lots of sex with her, and this was keeping him up at night. מתוך שהיתה חביבה עליו היה מרבה בתשמיש R. , Torah Temimah, Esther 2:23, offers a different explanation of the Talmud. He claims that Ahasuerus was up at night because he so enjoyed taking walks with and talking to Esther. כי היה מטייל ומשוחח עמה הרבה What I can’t figure out is why R. Epstein expects us to prefer his understanding, which turns Ahasuerus into a perfect gentlemen, over that of Rashi.[33] Finally, let me offer an example of distortion when it comes to sex. R. Israel Yanovski, Taharat Yisrael, vol. 2, p. 100b, no. 33, states: מי ששם אצבעו בתורף אשה פריצות גדולה היא ויש בו איסור The source offered for this surprising invasion of the marital bedroom is R. Yerucham,Toledot Adam ve-Havah, vol. 1, netiv 23 (p. 192d in the standard edition). Yet R. Yerucham says something very different.[34] מי ששם אצבעו בתורף אשת אישפריצות גדולה היא ויש בו איסור ואפילו המסתכל אבל אינו חייב מלקות The only question is if R. Yanovski’s quotation was a careless error (copied perhaps from R. Dovber Karasik,Pithei Olam, Orah Hayyim 240:16, who uses the same mistaken wording) or an intentional distortion due to puritanical feelings.[35] R. Moshe Stern, Be’er Moshe, vol. 3 p. 204, assumes the former while I think the latter is also possible. I say this because Taharat Yisrael is quite an extreme work when it comes to sexual matters, which R. Yanovski wants to limit as much as possible. Thus, he praises those tzadikim whose children, we are told, equal exactly the number of times these tzadikim had sexual relations. In other words, if a certain tzaddik only had three children, then in his entire life he only had sex three times.[36] As for other pious people, R. Yanovski, based on kabbalistic sources, tells them to avoid sexual relations on Rosh Ha- Shanah (and tavo alav berakhah if one can abstain for the entire Ten Days of Penitence), Hoshana Rabbah, the three days preceding Shavuot and also on Shavuot, from Rosh Hodesh Av until the 11th of Av, the first and second night of Passover, the nights of Shemini Atzeret and Simhat Torah, and hol ha- moed Pesah (unless it falls on Shabbat). If this wasn’t enough, he also assumes that sex is forbidden on Hanukkah and Purim and any day that you don’t recite tahanun (!).[37] בחנוכה ופורים נראה דאסור וכ”ש שאר ימים שאין נופלין על פניהם בהם דאסור בלי ספק

Finally, let me call attention to Berakhot 57b which states that three things resemble the World to Come, “the Sabbath, sunshine, and tashmish.” What does tashmish mean? Normally you would assume it to meantashmish ha-mitah, i.e., sexual relations. However, the Talmud explains that it doesn’t mean this but refers to tashmish“ of the orifices.”R. Samuel Alexandrov claims that the original rabbinic saying indeed meant what it said, i.e., that sex resembles the pleasure of the World to Come. However, the later sages didn’t want people to focus on sexual matters so they explained the passage in a different way.[38] Regarding the connection between sex and the World to Come, R. Solomon Alkabetz quotes “the kedoshim” that sexual pleasure is one sixtieth of “the true pleasure”, i.e., the World to Come.[39]

To be continued

* * * * * * Most of R. Yanovski’s Taharat Yisrael (mentioned in this post) focuses on the laws of niddah and mikveh. It was printed twice in Europe and then was reprinted in the United States in 1952. This latter publication was dedicated to the memory of R. Judah Leib Forer, the rabbi of Holyoke, Massachusetts. This page appears at the beginning of the book.

Here is the page of American haskamot added for this edition. This is one of a handful of haskamot from R. Soloveitchik, and I think is the first to appear in print. Regarding R. Forer, who was an outstanding student of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik, there is a good deal of information from family members available on a website here. Among the points noted was that R. Shach was a student of his. Here is the title page of Milei de-Igrot, consisting of Torah letters between R. Forer and R. . There is also one letter from R. Shach to R. Forer. On p. 181 we also see that R. Forer delivered a at RIETS. (There is another volume of Milei de-Igrot and this contains letters between R. Gifter and his teacher R. Moses Aaron Poleyeff. There is a good deal of biographical information about R. Gifter in this latter volume, including his difficult relationship with R. Bernard Revel.)

The one point I would like to add to all the recollections that appear on the website I have referred to is that R. Forer was unique in that he was the spiritual leader of both the Orthodox and Conservative communities. That is, the membership of the Conservative synagogue liked R. Forer so much that while they wanted a mixed pew congregation, they also wanted him as their rabbi. This information was confirmed to me by elderly members of the Orthodox and Conservative . What is not known is if R. Forer ever actually attended the Conservative synagogue or if he was ever officially recognized as their rabbi. He was, however, the only spiritual leader in the town, recognized by all, and I don’t know of another example in history where there was one rabbi for both the Orthodox and Conservative congregations. [1] Iggeret Musar, ed. Haberman (Jerusalem, 1946), p. 33. It is interesting that later in this work, in giving an example of an anti-Semitic decree in Spain, Alami mentions that Jews were forced to grow their beards. See p. 40. This shows that going clean-shaven was common in medieval Spain. Alami sees this as an example of midah ke-neged midah, i.e., since the Jews were improperly cutting off their beards, it was the non- Jewish authorities who forced them to grow the beards. [2] Jubelschrift zum siebzigen Geburtstag des Prof. Dr. H. Graetz (Breslau, 1887), p. 60 (Hebrew section). Both this source and Alami are cited in Israel Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (New York, 1975), p. 94 (he mistakenly dates the Italian document as 1413). Louis Finkelstein,Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages (New York, 1964), ch. 10, reprints the Italian document (mistakenly dating it as 1416). The passage I have referred to appears in Hebrew on p. 286, but is missing, together with much else, in what is supposed to be the translation on p. 294. Among the other Italian takkanot is one stating that a man can only wear one gold ring. See Jubelschrift, p. 59. I mention this only because some have the mistaken perception that Jewish men never wore rings. See also S’s post here which has a painting of R. Bernard Illowy wearing a ring. [3] In the days of the Talmud we find that plenty of betrothed, but not yet married, couples were having sex, or at least suspected of it. See Ketubot 9b, 12a. [4] Parashat Miketz, mahadura kama. [5] R. Moses Sofer, She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Even ha- Ezer no. 133, writes: ועוד דזנות דפנויה קיל לאינשי ולא משמע להו איסורא כל כך אע”ג שהם נדות, ועינינו רואות דרובן פרוצות בפנוייתן ונעשות צנועות אחר נישואי[הן]י Understood as written, the second part of this sentence is quite incredible, as the Hatam Sofer is stating that most unmarried Jewish women are sexually active. Yet there is no question in my mind that what he is really means is that most of those who are sexually active before marriage, behave properly after marriage. See here.

[6] Leket ha-Kemah (Amsterdam, 1707), p. 29a. [7] R. Jacob Kamenetsky was adamant that it is worse for a man to marry a non-Jew than to marry a Jew who won’t observe taharat ha-mishpahah. See Emet le-Yaakov, parashat Ve- Yehi, p. 237, translated here. [8] Perhaps this should be better translated as “some communities”, but I am dan le-kaf zekhut. See also Abraham Neuman, The Jews in Spain (Philadelphia, 1944), vol. 2, p. 279 n. 42. [9] Jewish prostitutes definitely felt that they were part of the community. See R. Raphael Ankawa, Karnei Re’em (Jerusalem, 1910), no. 225, for a responsum sent to Brazil, regarding whether it was permissible for the synagogue to accept charity from the prostitutes, as well as a parochet they made for the synagogue. See also R. Moses Isserles, Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 153:21. R. Raphael Aaron ben Shimon,Nehar Mitzrayim (Alexandria, 1908), vol. 1, p. 12a, discusses a case where not only did the prostitute donate a parochet, but she also inscribed her name into it in golden letters. As R. Raphael notes, this is especially problematic since if allowed then people praying in synagogue would see her name staring down upon them and this would invariably lead to improper thoughts. (He adds that this particular prostitute had been with a lot of the young Jewish men.) Therefore, he ruled that the parochet could not be used and any gifts from prostitutes to the synagogue could not have their names on it. He also mentions a prostitute who donated a sefer Torah to the synagogue (!), and this was accepted on the condition that her name not appear on it.. Regarding Jewish prostitutes, see also the documents from the Russian archives recently published in ChaeRan Y. Freeze and Jay M. Harris,Everyday Jewish Life in Imperial Russia (Waltham, 2013), pp. 337ff., and see also Dan’s earlier post here. In 1611 the Prague Jewish community ordered the Jewish prostitutes to leave. See Simhah Assaf,Ha-Onshin Aharei Hatimat ha-Talmud (Jerusalem, 1922) p. 114. Any prostitute found plying her trade after this time would have a mark of shame branded onto her skin! וזו שתזנה ח”ו מהיום והלאה יתוו עליה תו-קלון על ידי ברזל לוהט See also Takanot Kandia, eds. Cassuto and Artom (Jerusalem, 1942), no. 31. Pimps also felt that they were part of the community. See R. Joseph Hayyim, Rav Pealim, vol. 2, Orah Hayyim, no. 18, who rules that it is forbidden to give a pimp an aliyah, even if he only deals with non-Jewish prostitutes and non-Jewish clients. R. Hayyim Palache ruled that pimps must be expelled from the Jewish community. See Masa Hayyim, p. 14a. R. Solomon Kluger discusses Jewish pimps in Ha-Elef Lekha Shlomo, Yoreh Deah, no. 192, and see also R. Hayyim Palache, Hayyim be-Yad, no. 19, and R. Hayyim Hezekiah Medini, Sedei Hemed, Pe’at ha- Sadeh, ma’arekhet alef, no. 152 (s.v. apotropos le-arayot) . [10] Zikhron Yehudah, no. 17. [11] Akedat Yitzhak, Bereshit, sha’ar 20. [12] She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rivash, no. 425. [13] Hasidot u-Mordot, p. 240 n. 96: הוא סבר שעל “גדולי הדור” להעלים עיניהם מקיומן של זונות יהודיות מחשש לתגובה קשה של הסביבה הנוכרית, אם יהודים יקיימו יחסי מין עם נשים נוכריות [14] See Torah Shelemah, Gen. 37, note 200, and see also Rashi, Gen. 37:35. [15] See Da’at Zekenim mi-Ba’alei ha-Tosafot, Gen. 37:35 [16] See Berakhot 60a. [17] Tosafot ha-Shalom, ed. Gellis, to Gen. 46:8. [18] See R. Avraham S. Avraham, Nishmat Avraham (Jerusalem, 2007), vol. 3, p. 32. [19] See Gur Aryeh, Gen. 46:10. [20] The one exception I know of is Meiri, Sanhedrin 58b, who states that a non-Jew cannot marry his daughter. Even though the Talmud rejects this opinion, Meiri does not see this אפשר שדרך .rejection as the Talmud’s final word on the subject However, just a few lines below this .דחיה הוא וסוגיא בעלמא Meiri writes that if a Jew’s daughter (through a non-Jewish woman) converts to Judaism, he can marry her! While R. Abraham Sofer doesn’t comment on this seeming inconsistency, in R. Yitzhak Ralbag’s edition of Meiri on Sanhedrin, published in Sanhedrei Gedolah, vol. 4, he writes: ק”ק לשיטת רבינו שב”נ אסור בבתו איך מותרת לו אחר הגירות. Before you reply that the convert is like a “new person” and thus has no connection to her father, recall that in Yevamot 22a it explains that the incest prohibitions that are applicable for a non-Jew remain forbidden (rabbinically) even after conversion. So how then, according to Meiri, can a father marry his converted daughter? [21] Ba-Midbar 90. See also Shabbat 130a. [22] See also Maimonides. Hilkhot Melakhim 9:5, that this is permitted for non-Jews. I will return to the matter of incest in a future post. [23] See his article “Ha-Zakaim be-Mikra ve-Hayavim be-Hazal,” available here. [24] See Irving Agus, of Rothenburg (New York, 1970), vol., 1, p. 279. [25] Teshuvot Ba’alei ha-Tosafot, p. 33. See also Agus in Jewish Quarterly Review 49 (1959), pp. 217-218. [26] A number of years ago two of my friends got married. One of them met with his rabbi for “the talk”, and was told that when it comes to sex, pretty much everything is permitted. The other friend attended a “hatan class” in . He called me one night, surprised at being told that in sexual relations only one position is permitted. This was stated as a matter of halakhah and the directly opposing statement of R. Moses Isserles, Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 25:2, was never even mentioned. R. Isserles writes: ויכול לעשות עם אשתו מה שירצה . . . ובא עליה בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה או דרך איברים ובלבד שלא יוציא זרע לבטלה. ויש מקילין ואומרים שמותר שלא כדרכה אפילו אם מוציא זרע אם עושה באקראי ואינו רגיל בכך. ואף על פי שמותר בכל אלה כל המקדש עצמו במותר לו קדוש יאמרו לו Note R. Isserles’ last sentence. In other words, my friend’s hatan teacher decided (without asking his students) that all the future grooms sitting before him were going to be .קדוש called [27] See also R. Moses of Coucy, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, pos. no. 52. R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski, She’elot u-Teshuvot Ahiezer, vol 3, no. 24:4-5, has a different understanding. [28] R. Nahman of Bratslav stated that not only does the tzaddik not experience any sexual pleasure, but he suffers during sex, even more than a boy suffers during circumcision. See Arthur Green, Tormented Master (Woodstock, VT, 1992), p. 39. Regarding sexual pleasure, there is an old question as to why one does not recite a blessing over it. R. Zvi Elimelech Shapira of Dinov stated that before sex one should make a shehakol on food or drink and include in thisalso the anticipated sexual pleasure. See his Magid Ta’alumah (, 2006), to Berakhot 40a, 43a. Recognizing that people will find this suggestion quite strange, especially as no one before him ever had this idea, R. Zvi Elimelech adds: כתבתי זה מסברתי והמשכיל לא ישליך דברי אחרי גיוו כי דברי טעם הם Elsewhere, R. Zvi Elimelech writes that optimally one should not have any pleasure from sex. See Igra de-Firka (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 28b (no. 197): ובאמת עפ”י התורה יותר טוב שלא ליהנות [29] See also Tosafot, Shabbat 118b, s.v. eima, that R. Yose ben Halafta performed yibbum with five different women. [30] She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharam be-R. Barukh, ed. Bloch (Budapest, 1895), no. 866. [31] Mor u-Ketziah 240. [32] It is also worth noting that R. Isaac Luria held that one’s tallit katan should remain on during marital relations. See R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai,Birkei Yosef, Orah Hayyim 8:7. See also Magen Avraham, Orah Hayyim 240:22, and R. Avner Afgin, Divrei Shalom, vol. 5, pp. 417ff. R. Mordechai Eliyahu, Darkhei Taharah ha-Shalem, p. 278, writes: והמקפידים ללבש טלית טקן כל הזמן חוץ משעת רחצה, יניחו בשעת התשמיש את הטלית על צוארם שלא יחצץ ביניהם

[33] A friend pointed out to me that R. Ovadiah Yosef adopted R. Epstein’s explanation. See Hazon Ovadiah: Purim, p. 279. [34] R. Yerucham’s formulation is also quoted by R. Moses Isserles, Darkhei Moshe, Even ha-Ezer 21:2. [35] R. Yanovski’s “revision” of R. Yerucham relates to the matter of female sexual pleasure. There is a good deal to say about this, especially with regard to the approach of the Gur hasidim which forbids any foreplay from the husband. However, for now, let me just note that R. Joseph Hayyim says the exact same thing, and unlike the Gur hasidim who see this as an added stringency, he sees it as an actual prohibition (which for many women would mean that in their entire lives they ומפני הצניעות would never experience any sexual pleasure :See Ben Yehoyada, Niddah 13a (.אקצר גם הנשים אסורות להשחית הזרע שלהן, כמ”ש רבינו האר”י ז”ל. מיהו נראה גם באשה אם בעלה עושה משמוש ידים באותו מקום דרך שחוק והתעוררות תאוה ודאי גורם לה בזה הזרעה לבטלה, ואיכא איסור של השחתת זרע (See, however, Torah li-Shmah, no. 504, where he does not regard this as an actual prohibition.)TheLehem Mishneh, Hilkhot Ishut 15:18, says the exact same thing as appears in Ben Yehoyada without using any kabbalistic sources: כשהבעל ממשמש באותו מקום דודאי מן הדין אסור לעשות כך דאסור למשמש שם Lehem Mishneh’s view is accepted by R. Isaac Palache. Yafeh la-Lev, Even ha-Ezer 25:8. R. Yitzhak Abadi, Or Yitzhak, vol. 2, p. 65, is very disturbed by the Lehem Mishneh and states: הוא תמוה לחדש כן בדברי הרמב”ם מכח קושיא בדבריו . . . ובכלל עצם הענין הזה לחדש דברים כאלה בלי שום ראיה הוא דבר תמוה, ובפרט שרש”י אומר בפירוש שמותר, ועוד שמצוותו בכך נשים לאו בנות ,Regarding the talmudic statement,Niddah 13a ,R. Moshe Malka,Mikveh ha-Mayim, vol. 6, p. 57 ,הרגשה נינהו writes as follows, in surprisingly strong language: כמה קשה עלי שמועה זו שהיא נגד הטבע, וכי נשים לאו בני הרגשה נינהו? וכי אינן נהנות גם הן מתשמיש כמו הגברים? I was surprised to see that R. Shlomo Aviner does not regard female sexual pleasure as having any real significance. Here are passages from two separate letters (quoted in Yakir Englander and Avi Sagi, Guf u-Miniyut be-Siah ha-Tziyoni-Dati he-Hadash [Jerusalem, 2013], p. 108). מה שאין אשתך נהנית בשעת החיבור אין זה אסון, זה קורה לנשים רבות, והעיקר שהיא אינה סובלת מזה. היא נהנית הנאה רגשית פנימית מעצם הקרבה, מעצם האהבה האחווה השלום והרעות, ואינה זקוקה להנאה גופנית בעניין ההנאה – מה שאינך נהנית, אינו קריטי, ישנן נשים שלא נהנו כל ימי חייהן אפילו פעם אחת ולא הפריע להן, אלא הכול היה באהבה גדול I hope to return to this very interesting book. But for now I can’t resist citing a passage from R. Eliezer Melamed (quoted ibid., p. 128). Not only could an American Modern Orthodox rabbi never express such sentiments (if he wants to keep his job), but I am convinced that even if such a passage appeared in an American haredi publication, the women would be quite offended. איזו אישה כשירה? העושה רצון בעלה, זה הסדר. כאשר יש החלטה כזו או אחרת, בנהוג שבעולם שהאיש הוא הקובע, כך מקובל. כאשר זה לך כך, בדרך כלל שני בני הזוג לא מרוצים. אפילו אם האישה שמחה שהיא מחליטה בלבד ומשפיעה על מהלך העניינים, בסוף היא מתמרמרת שהיא לא נשואה לבעל, לא לגבר, אלא לסמרטוט. כמובן שיכולים להיות דברים מסוימים שבהם האישה קובעת, “נו, תחליטי את איזה צבע נבחר לספה”. הבעל ג’נטלמן, בבקשה, תחליטי את. אבל הוא נותן לה את המנדט להחליט, כך מקובל R. Aryeh Leib Steinman, Ayelet ha-Shahar, Kiddushin 30b, also states that a wife is obligated to obey her husband. It is easy to find plenty of earlier sources that say this, but I wonder how many haredi women today have such an understanding of their position in a marriage.

Regarding R. Melamed’s point that a man has to be a “man”, it reminded me of an interesting Meiri toKiddushin 82b. The Talmud, ibid., states: “Happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females.” Meiri suggests the following explanation: “Woe to him whose sonsare like females,” with all the negative implications this implies:

שבניו נקבות שהזכרים פחותים וחסירים, ואשרי מי שבניו זכרים שנמצא בהם השלמות המכוון בהם R. Yoel Schwartz, Ben Torah vi-Yeshivah (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 143, mentions this Meiri in the course of his discussion of male and female roles in Judaism. Schwartz makes the following very enlightened comment about how men should relate to “women’s work”, i.e., housework.

טיפוח הבית, הוא חלק האשה כמו שביארנו לעיל, מאחר שכאמור שטח זה הוא בתחום האשה, מי שמתעסק בטיפוח הבית מפסיד את כל ערך התועלת של קנין תורה I shouldn’t mock it, however. If these guys can get their women to go along, who am I to protest? It wasn’t that long ago that pretty much all men had this Archie Bunker-like attitude. [36] Taharat Yisrael, vol. 2, p. 97b. [37] Taharat Yisrael, vol. 2, p. 97a. [38] Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (Vilna, 1907), vol. 1, p. 51. See also David Biale, Eros and the Jews (Berkeley, 1997), pp. 42-43, who sees here a conflict between the Sages and popular belief, with the latter assuming that there is a place for sexuality in messianic days. (When the Talmud refers to the World to Come it means the messianic era.) [39] Shoresh Yishai (Sziget, 1891), to Ruth 3:7 (p. 56a).