Seforim Sale

Seforim Sale

by Eliezer Brodt While hunting for seforim and books I recently came across the following excellent titles for sale, from an old library and some other places. Most of these titles are very hard to find. Some of the prices are better than others, but all in all I think they are fair. Almost all the books are in great shape. The sale prices are only for the next three days. After that they might not be available.There is only one copy of most of these titles so it’s being sold on a first come first serve basis. Shipping is not included in the price; that depends on the order and size, ranging between 5-9 dollars a book. Feel free to ask for details about any specific book on the list. All questions should be sent to me at [email protected] thank you and enjoy. Part of the proceeds go to helping the efforts of the seforim blog. א. מחזור סוכות גולדשמידט $50 ב. כתבי ר’ יוסף כספי ג’ חלקים, א. תם כסף שונות ב. אדני כסף ג. עשרה כלי כסף $74 ג. הלכות ארץ ישראל מרדכי מרגליות $27 ד. ספר תיקון הדעות, ליצחק אלבלג, האקדמיה הלאומית,$21 ה. אגרת הרמ”ה $18 ו. השגות הרמ”ך על הרמב”ם –עם הערות ש’ אטלס 16$ ז. ספר העגונות, י’ כהנא, מוסד רב קוק, $30 ח. תשובות ר’ שר שלום גאון מוסד רב קוק $24 ט. הרב זק”ש, מנהגי ארץ ישראל $17 י. מאמר במחויב המציאות לר’ יוסף בן יהודה תלמיד הרמב”ם 8$ יא. רבי רפאל ביטראן, מדות טובות פירוש המכילתא, מכון הרב יד נסים, תס”ח עמודים, 24$ יב מבוא התלמוד לר’ יוסף בן יהודה תלמיד הרמב”ם 9$ יג. אגרות ר’ יהודה בן קוריש תל אביב תשי”ב 17$ יד. ספר העולם הקטן לר’ יוסף אבן צדיק 14$ טו. אגרות ר’ שמואל בן עלי 18$ טז. רבנו מיוחס על בראשית 6$ יז. גליוני יואל [אבין של רב הרצוג] הערות על ש”ס, $16 יח. ספרי הנהגות צוואת ודברי מוסר כולל: מוסר השכל לרב האי גאון לקח טוב לר’ אברהם יגל נחלת אבות לר’ מאיר ב”ר אליהו נכד להרב מעלות התורה אמרי קודש לר’ יואל פרומקין, תלמיד הגר”א צוואה של ר’ יחיזקאל מהבורג בית אברהם לבעל החיי אדם אמרי בינה לר’ ישראל סלטנר- 10$ יט. שו”ת ר’ עזריאל הילדסהימר 22$ כ. ספר הפרדס לר’ אשר בן רבי חיים על הלכות ברכות 13$ כא. אהל יוסף ב’ חלקים, על ספר היראה לרבנו יונה, עם חיבור מקור היראה מר’ בנימן זילבר, 33$ כב. צבי לצדיק, ר’ יהושע שפירא, ירושלים תשי”ד, קצ”ד עמודים, 11$. כג. שו”ת מחולת המחנים, שו”ת הר תבור, ר’ ישראל מרגליות יפה [תלמיד החת”ס], חומר מעניין, +230 עמודים, 9$ כד. ר’ דוד צבי הופמן דברים חלק א 23$ כה. א’ קופפר, מהדיר, פירושי מסכת פסחים וסוכה מבית מדרשו של ,רש”י, מקיצי נרדמים, ירושלים תשמ”ד .כו. בארות נתן, ר’ נתן רבינוביץ ביאורים על הש”ס, 12$ כז. ילקוט שמעוני מוסד רב קוק שמות א, 10$ כח. מנוחה וקדושה 22$ כט. ילקוט מכירי, ישיעה משלי 16$ ל. ר’ חנוך ארנטרוי, עיונים בדברי חז”ל ובלשונום, מוסד רב קוק 9$ לא. ספר הלקוטים קובץ מדרשים ישנים, חלק ה ע”י אליעזר גרינהוט – מדרש ילמדנו על דברים 14$ לב. ספר ארץ ישראל, ר’ יחיאל מיכל טוקצינסקי, 8$ לג. מסכת אבות על פי כתבי יד, ב’ חלקים כארולוס טילור 32$ לד. אור פני יצחק, על ר’ יצחק פייגענבוים 13$ לה. עזר הדת, ר’ יצחק פולקר, 16$ [לו. סידור צלותא דאברהם ב’ חלקים 55$ [מצב מצוין לז. ילקוט חדש $8 לח. ר’ אליעזר פליקלס, עולת החודש 8$ לט. שו”ת מן השמים עם פירוש קסת הסופר לר’ אהרן מרקוס 8$ מ. פיקוח נפש 13$ מא. ר’ יהודה חלאוה, אמרי שפר על התורה 13$ מב. פרי תבואה חלק א 14$ מג. מנחת יהודה על שו”ס $14 מד. בחינת הדת לר’ אליהו דלמידגו (מהדורת ריגייו) 18$ מה. תורי זהב על שיר השירים שקל הקודש על מגילת אסתר ברית קודש על עניני מילה לר’ שמואל באנדי $30 אין להשיג מו. הירושלמי המפורש, שלמה גורן, ברכות, מוסד רב קוק ירושלים תשכ”א, 30$ מז. תכלת מרדכי, ר’ מרדכי גימפל יפה, פירוש על רמב”ן על התורה, קפו עמודים, 17$ מח. כור זהב ר’ אריה ליב שטיינהארט פ’ על רמב”ן על התורה, ירושלים תרצ”ו, קע”ב עמודים, 20$ מט. שו”ת נר למאור, 11$ .נ. גבעת פנחס, ר’ פנחס מפאלאצק, תלמיד הגר”א 12$ נא. ר’ ידידיה טיאה ווייל, ברכת יום טוב על מסכת ביצה,9$ נב. אהבת ציון ויורשלים ר’ דוב רטנר, ביצה תענית $10 נג. מלאכת הקודש, ר’ אלעזר פלעקלס 5$ נד. מתק שפתים לרבי עמנואל פראנשיס 10$ נה. ר’ יצחק וויס, שיח יצחק על התורה מכון ירושלים 9$ נו. מאורות נתןברך משה ר’ נתן אלעווסקיא, מכון ירושלים 9$ נז. -פתרון תורה ילקוט מדרשים ופירושים- מהדיר אפרים אורבעך .(מבוא הערות ומפתחות) 415- עמ’, 21$ נח. משברי ים ר’ משה לייטר, ביאורים וחידושים לתלמוד בבלי, רעט עמודים, מוסד רב קוק תשל”ט, 15$ נט. משיבת נפש ר’ יעקב פעלדמאן על ספר תורה תמימה 550 עמודים 35$ ס. תהלוכות היבשה [הלכות הולכי דרכים] 14$ סא. ר’ יששכר טייכטאל, שו”ת משנת שכיר, או”ח, מכון ירושלים 11$ סב. ספר מוסר פירוש משנה אבות לרבי יוסף בן יהודה תלמיד הרמב”ם, 22$ סג. ספר היסודות לר’ יצחק הישראלי 20$ סד. ר’ יעקב עמדין לחם שמים על פרקי אבות 17$ סה. ירחון תבונה לר’ ישראל סלנטר 10$ סו. מסכת מכות על פי כתב יד עם הערות מאיר איש שלום 15$ סז. מסכת מגילה ומועד קטן על פי כתב יד ע”י י’ פרייס, 14$ סח. שו”ת שאילת שלום 9$ מהדורה מצומצמת סט. שו”ת קדושת יום טוב 9$ מהדורה מצומצמת ע. שו”ת נר למאור, מהדורה מצומצמת 9$ עא. שו”ת גבעות עולם, מהדורה מצומצמת 9$ עב. כבוד חופה קובץ לקוטי מדרשים – ע”י חיים הורביץ 10$ עג. חקר ועיון חלק ג ר’ קלמן כהנא 8$ עד. אמת קנה ספר חסידים [אחיין של הרא”ש] דרך טוביםדרך סלולה דרך חיים מגילת סדרים [ר’ יהודה הורובייץ ויכוח ומחקר בין מקובלים ותלמידים] צל המעלות 9$ עה. תלמוד בבלי: עם תרגום עברי ופרוש חדש, חלופי גרסאות ומראי- .מקומות ירושלים, תשי”ב-תש”ך הוצאת דביר-מסדה ג’ חלקים בבא קמא / תרגם ופרש עזרא ציון מלמד 1952 210 עמ’. 10$ .1 בבא בתרא / תרגם ופירש שרגא אברמסון 1958 210 עמ’. 10$ .2 בבא מציעא / תרגמו ופרשו משה צובל, וחיים זלמן דימיטרובסקי .3 (1960), 232 עמ’. 10$ עו. תוספות השלם על התורה, חלקים ד-ח [ה’ חלקים] [חדש] $36 לכל החלקים מחקר א. על הלכה ואגדה לוי גינצבורג, $16 [ב. ספר היובל לכבוד ש’ קרויס $38 [נדיר ג. מחקרי ארץ ישראל, חלק בה, בעריכת מ’ בניהו, מוסד רב קוק $24 ד. אברהם אמיר, מוסדות ותארים בספרות התלמוד, מוסד רב קוק, $17 ה. אברהם ביכליר, מחקרים בתקופת המשנה, מוסד רב קוק, $15 ו.תחומי ארץ ישראל, פנחס נאמן $18 ז. הסיפור החסידי י’ דן $21 ח. ספרות המסור והדרוש י’ דן $21 ט. הסיפור העברי בימי הביניים י’ דן $21 י. החסידות כמיסטיקה, ר’ ש”ץ,$19 יא. הגות והנהגה : השקפותיהם החברתיות של יהודי פולין בשלהי ימי הביניים, חיים בן ששון $16 יב. ספר רש”י מוסד רב קוק $33 יג.שבט יהודה- מוסד ביאליק (מצב בינוני) $19 יד. סנהדרין גדולה הוניג, מוסד רב קוק $16 טו. הסנהדרין אברהם בכיליר מוסד רב קוק $16 טז. שלמה דב גוטין סדרי חינוך, מתקופת הגאונים עד בית הרמב”ם, יצחק בן צבי $24 יז. ד’ תמר מחקרים בתולודת היהודים בארץ ישראל בארצות המזרח מוסד רב קוק 20$ יח. רבי משה אלשיך שמעון שלם, מכון בן צבי, [בעריכת מאיר בניהו] $22 יט. ש’ באילובלוצקי, אם למסדורת, בר אילן תשל”א, 280 עמודים, [כולל מאמרים על רבו ר’ איזה’לה מפוניבז’ רב סעדיה גאון ועוד דברים חשובים], 17$ כ. יעקב נחום אפשטיין, מבואות לספרות האמוראים $33 כא.חנוך אלבק, מבוא לתלמודים, 694 עמודים 33$ כב. חנוך אלבק, מחקרים בברייתא ותוספתא, $17 כג.ע מלמד, פרקי מבוא לספרות התלמוד, $26 כד. מחקרים בתלמוד, בנימין דה פריס, מוסד רב קוק $18 כה. אברהם וויס, התהוות התלמוד בשלמותו, כריכה רכה, $21 כו. אברהם ווייס, מחקרים בתלמוד, מוסד רב קוק $21 כז. אברהם ווייס, דיונים ובירורים במסכת בבא קמא, $22 כח. הערות לסוגיות הש”ס : הבבלי והירושלמי : <הערות קצרות – באורים מקיפים וארוכים> : אוסף מאמרים / מאת אברהם ווייס $15 [כט. ספר היובל לכבוד לוי גינצבורג $33 [כריכה רכה ל. מחקרים ומקורות ב’ חלקים יהודה רוזנטל $38 לא. מבוא למשנה תורה לרמב”ם, י’ טברסקי, $28 לב. הרמב”ם, תורתו ואישיותו בעריכת ד”ר שמעון פדרבוש, $18 לג.מקורות ומסורות ד’ הלבני, סדר נשים $30 לד. ארץ יהודה, ש’ קליין, $21 לה. הניסיון במקרא וביהדות, יעקב ליכט $16 לו. משנתו העיונית של הרמ”א, יונה בן ששון, $23 לז. ציצת נובל צבי י’ תשבי, $33 לח. ג’ שלום, שבתי צבי, ב’ חלקים, $37 לט. הקבלה בגירונה ג’ שלום $21 מ. הקבלה בפרבנוס ג’ שלום $21 מא. כתבי יד בקבלה, ג’ שלום $27 מב. נתיבי אמונה ומינות, י’ תשבי (כריכה קשה)24$ מג. הכהנים ועבודתם א’ ביכלר 16$ מוסד רב קוק מד. שיר היחוד והכבוד – הרבמן 21$ מוסד רב קוק מה. מבחר כתבים ר’ מתתיהו שטראשון 18$ מו. יונה פרקנל דרכו של רש”י בפירושו לתלמוד, $23 מז. ש’ אסף, תקופת הגאונים וספרותה, מוסד רב קוק $16 מח. ספר המקנה,ר’ יוסף איש רוסהיים, מקיצי נרדמים $20 מט.תקופת הסבוראים וספרותה יעקב אפרתי 19$ נ. שתי כרוניקות עבריות מדור גירוש ספרד, מבוא א’ דוד, מרכז דינור $8 נא.אברהם ביכלר, עם הארץ הגלילי, מוסד רב קוק $15 נב. ליטא בירושלים יד בן צבי, עמנואל אטקס [אין להשיג] $21 נג. מחקרי שבתאות גרשום שלום, עם עובד, 775 עמודים, [אין להשיג], $35 נד. אוצר ההגדות– יצחק יודלב, ביבליוגראפיה של הגדות של פסח (מראשית הדפוס העברי עד שנת תש”ך, 70$ (אין להשיג נה. זכרונות ר’ דוד מבוליחוב 16$ נו. השחיטה וצער בעלי חיים ר’ ישראל לוינגר 11$ נז. זכריה פרנקל מבוא הירושלמי 22$ נח. הרמב”ם והמכילתא דרשב”י, ר’ מנחם כשר, ירושלים תש”ם, רמ .עמודים $13 נט. אברהם פוקס האדמ”ר מסאטמר, 30$ ס. מבוא המשנה יעקב ברילל שני חלקים 36$ סא. שמואל קליין, תולדות הישוב היהודי בארץ ישראל, מחתימת התלמוד עד תנועת ישוב א”י,(תרצ”ה), 311 עמודים, 27$ סב. ר’ יהודה גרשוני, משפט המלוכה על הלכות מלכים להרמב”ם 11$ סג. דניאל גולדשמידט מחקרי תפילה ופיוט 16$ סד. ספר המצרף, ביאורים והגהות לאגדות חז”ל, אברהם דובזויץ, (דפוס צילום, אודעסא תרל”ו) 14$ סה. מקדמוניות היהודים אברהם עפשטיין 25$ סו. שד”ל, בית האוצר, 22$ סז. יצחק אלפסי, החכם המופלא ר’ שלמה הכהן אהרנסון 11$ סח. רבקה זיסקינד, תולדות בעל יפה עינים, 11$ סט. נחום לאם תורה לשמה, מוסד הרב קוק 18$ ע. יהודה אליצור, הרואה והרועה רשימות על ספר שמואל 10$ עא שערי זמרה הארוך 14$ עב. יוסף דרנבורג, משא ארץ ישראל 20$ עג. מעלות היוחסין מאת ר’ אפרים זלמן מרגליות עם הערות 10$ עד. ר’ יוחנן לדברמן, מגילת רזין על הרוגצי’ובי 7$ עה. דניאל שפרבר, תרבות חומרית בארץ ישראל בימי התלמוד חלק ב $16 עו. צבי ירון משנתו של הרב קוק, תשנ”ג, 370 עמודים, 12$ עז. תולדות החסידות שלמה דובנוב 30$ עח. עשרת הדברות 20$ עט. פנקס התקנות והרישומים של החברה קדישה דג”ח וורמיישא, תע”ו- .תקצ”ז, א’ אונא, מוסד רב קוק תש”ם, 204 עמודים 12$ פ. בן ציון אלפס, מעשה אלפס, ישראל תשל”ח, רכ עמודים, 8$ פא. יוסף נוה, ראשית תולדותיו של האלפבית, ירושלים תשמט, 14$ פב. ראשונים ואחרונים, יצחק רפאל תל אביב תשי”ז, 427 עמודים. 22$ פג. חיי יהודים באשכנז, אברהם ברלניר, דפוס צילום, ישראל תשכ”ט עמודים, 80 עמודים, 18$ פד.. פתיחות והסתגרות, י’ אלבוים, 18$ פה. ש’ קוק עיונים ומחקרים חלק א 20$ פו. כלי זכוכית בספרות התלמוד, ד”ר יהושע בראנד מוסד רב קוק 20$ פז.. ספר המלבי”ם (נצח) [כולל כמה ספרים תולדות ע”י א’ סורסקי, שנת היובל נכתב ע”י המלבי”ם, עלה לתרופה –על הל’ דעות להרמב”ם, משל ומליצה –נכתב ע”י המלבי”ם], רסג עמודים, 15$ פח. באהלי יעקב, שמחה אסף, מוסד רב קוק, [ספר מלא חומר חשוב], $17 פט. מחזורי שבעתות לסדרים ולפרשיות 16$ צ. הלכה הליכה ומשיחיות בכת מדבר יהודה 18$ צא. פרקי שירה חלק א 15$ צב. בנימין בכר, ערכי מדרש, חלק א תנאים $19 צג. זאב ספראי, הקהילה היהודית בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה 17$ צד. ר’ דוד צבי הופמן המשנה הראשונה ופלוגתא דתנאי 9$ צה. ש”י עולומת, דן סדן 9$ צו. זכותא דאברהם-תולדות הליכות ומנהגים הצדיק מציכנוב, 12$ Towards a Bibliography of seforim related to Shavous and Megilas Rus (new and old)

Towards a Bibliography of seforim related to Shavous and Megilas Rus (new and old)

By Eliezer Brodt

In this post I intend to start a list towards a more complete bibliography to the various seforim (new and old) and articles related to Shavous. I hope to update it much more in the future as my computer (with all my information just died).

When learning the Halachos of Shavous, one is struck how the Tur does not mention anything special for Shavous except for instructions related to davening and Keriyas Hatorah. The only custom he mentions that is unique to Shavous is saying Azharot. Rabbi Yosef Caro in both of his works, Beis Yosef and Shulchan Aruch pretty much follows in this path. In the Codes is not until the Rema that some of the famous customs related to this Yom Tov are brought down, such as the custom of placing flowers in shuls and houses, the custom of eating Milchigs and eating special lechem to remember theShtei Halechem. Only afterwards through the writings of the Matteh Moshe, Knesses Hagedolah and especially the Magen Avraham are the other customs related to this Yom Tov brought forward, among them, when exactly is one supposed to daven Maariv Shavous night, staying up the whole night learning, saying Akdamus, using a special Trope when leining the Aseres Hadibros,and leining Megilas Rus[1].

The first work worth mentioning, as its one of my all time favorites, is Rav Zevin’s Moadim Be-halacha. In this work he has four pieces, none of which needs my approval ! – related to Shavous. He has a general piece, one related to various issues about the Shtei Halechem, another related to Megilas Rus and one related to various aspects of Aseres Hadibros.

Regarding general aspects of Aseres Hadibros one should see the collection of articles in the volume called Aseres Hadibros edited by B. Segal (Magnes Press, 1986) and the work Aseres Hadibros Ve-keriyas Shema from Moshe Weinfeld (2001).

For a discussion of the special Trope used when leining the Aseres Hadibros see the article from Amnon Shiloah in the volume Aseres Hadibros edited by B. Segal. See also Rabbi Dovid Yitzchaki in the back of his edition of Luach Eresh pp. 524- 540; the series of articles of Y. Laufer (available here, here and here) [special thanks to my good friend Mr. Yisroel Israel for bringing this to my attention]; this article from Y. Ofer.

For discussion of the custom to stand during the leining of Aseres Hadibros see this earlier post by Dan Rabinowitz available here and especially the sources listed at the end. To add to the usage of the Teshuvos Harambam mentioned there, see Rav Zevin, Moadim Be-halacha, p. 389-390. See also what I mention here, and also Rabbi Oberlander,Minhag Avosenu Beyadenu, pp.605-622.

Regarding Shtei Halechem see the excellent workBirchat Haaretz from Rabbi Y. Mashbaum availablehere .

Regarding the time when to daven Maariv Shavous night see Rabbi Binyomin Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, 4:344-369.

Regarding staying up Shavous night, see R. Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, 3:268-364, where he traces this minhag and deals with, at great length, the minhag of saying Tikun. See also Professor Moshe Chalamish, Ha-Kabalah, pp. 595- 612. See also J.D. Wilhelm, “Sidrei Tikkunim,” in Alei Ayin: Essays Presented to Salman Schocken (Jerusalem: Schocken 1948-1952), pp. 125-146, (Hebrew). Of course I must mention my good friend Menachem Butler’s favorite article relating to all this, Elliott Horowitz, “Coffee, Coffeehouses, and the Nocturnal Rituals of Early Modern Jewry,” AJS Review 14:1 (Spring 1989) pp. 17-46. For other Halachic issues related to staying up all night see the recent work, Ha-niyur Kol Ha-laylah.

Regarding saying Akdamot see this earlier post from Dan Rabinowitz available here. See also Rabbi Dovid Yitzchaki in the back of his edition of Luach Eresh, pp. 541-542. See also Jeffrey Hoffman, “Akdamut: History, Folklore, and Meaning,” Jewish Quarterly Review 99:2 (Spring 2009) pp. 161-183.

Regarding the custom of saying Azharot on Shavous see what I wrote here. I hope to update this post in the near future. Meanwhile, see what I wrote in Yeshurun 25:447-449.

Another area worth learning about is Bikurim. For this I recommend the volume of the Safrai Family from their series of Mishnas Eretz Yisrael.

Regarding the custom of placing flowers in Shul and at home, see the works of Rabbi Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadenu, pp. 573-604 and the collections of material found in Moadim Li-simcha and Pardes Eliezer.

Regarding the custom of eating Dairy on Shavous, much has been written. See the works of Rabbi Oberlander,Minhag Avosenu Beyadenu, pp. 623-647 and the collections of material found in Moadim Li-simcha and Pardes Eliezer. Recently Rabbi Moshe Dinin collected 160 reasons (!) for this custom in Kuntres Matamei Moshe (2008). Even more recently Rabbi Yosef Ohev Zion printed a work called Yoma De-atzartah (2009) [thanks to Yissochor Hoffman for bringing this work to my attention]. For important discussion related to this topic see the articles of my friend Rabbi Yehudah Spitz available here and here.

Related to this one should read the great article by Aviad A. Stollman, “Halakhic Development as a Fusion of Hermeneutical Horizons: The Case of the Waiting Period Between Meat and Dairy,” AJS Review 28:2 (November 2005) pp. 1-30 (Hebrew) [expanded from his M.A. on Perek Kol Habassar.

Another custom that originally took place on Shavous was when a child turned three they used to conduct a special seder with eating cakes and reciting various pesukim and the like. This custom was dealt with by many; for a recent discussion of this topic, including sources, see my article inYerushasenu 5 (2011), pp. 337-360. [A PDF is available upon request].

Another issue of interest worth mentioning related to Shavous is the plagiarism of the highly controversial Sefer Chemdas Yamim discussed many times on this blog (see here). Isaiah Tishbi in his various essays where he proves the plagiarism’s of the Chemdas uses many different topics related to Shavous. See the collection of his articlesChikrei Kabbalah Veshiluchoseh pp. 374-376 (regarding when to daven Maariv), 382-383 (which day was Matan Torah), pp. 389-391 (regarding standing during Aseret hadibrot), pp. 391-393 (regarding the Maggid visiting the Beis Yosef on Shavous night) and pp. 340-341 (regarding eating meat after milk).

Here is a listing of some general works related to Shavous that deal with many of the above aspects and more:

.א. ר’ שלמה קלוגר, קהלת יעקב, ירושלים תשס”ו, תמז עמודים

.ב. ר’ פנחס שווארטץ, מנחה חדשה, תרצ”ז, נו עמודים

.ג. ר’ יצחק ווייס, בינה לעתים, בני ברק תשסד

.ד. ר’ שריה דבליצקי, קיצור הלכות מועדים, תשס”ו, פב עמודים

.ה. ר’ אבוגדר נבנצל, ירושלים במועדיה .ו. ר’ עובדיה יוסף, חזון עובדיה, יום טוב, ירושלים תשס”ג

.ז. ר’ אהרן מיאסניק, מנחת אהרן, ירושלים תשס”ח, רצב עמודים

.ח. ר’ גדליה אבערלאנדער, מנהג אבותינו בידינו, מאנסי תשס”ו

.ט. פרדס אליעזר

.י. ר’ טוביה פריינד, מועדים לשמחה, ירושלים תשס”ח

יא. ר’ יצחק טעסלער, פניני המנהג, מונסי תשס”ח, תצב עמודים, ספר .זה כולל אלפי מקורות וס”ד פרקים על עניני החג

.יב. ר’ יוסף חיים אוהב ציון, יומא דעצרתא, ירושלים תשס”ח

Over the centuries numerous works have been written explain this Megilah. Just to mention a few: until last year the best collection of Rishonim was in the Toras Chaim edition printed by Mossad Rav Kook. This edition has the commentaries of nine Rishonim printed based on manuscripts.

A few year ago the Even Yisrael company printed a nicely done edition which had a few Rishonim and Achronim. But I cannot offer an opinion if it does not have mistakes and the like. More recently they reprinted this, adding many more Rishonim and Achronim. If one is interested in buying any one volume related to Rus this is the best to buy for your money, as you get a bunch of commentaries all in one volume.

Another work worth mentioning is called Tosfos Haslem this is a collection from many different manuscripts of the Baalei Hatosfos on the Megilah.

Another work on Rus worth mentioning is the Shoresh Yeshai from Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz. There are many editions of this work, but I recommend the one printed a few years ago edited by Rabbi Shmuel Askhkenazi, as it includes a very good introduction, many notes and some very useful indices.

Another beautiful work on Rus worth learning through is the Meshivos Nefesh from the Bach. This perush goes through everything related to the megilah very thoroughly. He also wrote a work on Rashi called Be’er Mayim. This work was printed many times.

Another work is the Torah Sheleimah continuing in the path of Rabbi Menachem Kasher’s Torah Sheleimah on the Torah, collecting the many Midrashim on the Megilah. However the great notes of Rav Kasher are definitely missed by many.

Another work I enjoyed on Rus was from Rabbi Yosef Zechariah Stern – one of my favorite Gedolim – his bekius here is simply remarkable (as it is in all his other works).

Another collection of useful works on Megilas Rus was printed a few years ago by my good friend Rabbi Moshe Hubner. The title of the volume is Uryan Toilessyah (314 pp.). This volume contains four works, the first being his own calledUryan Toilessyah. The style of this work is to deal with many of the issues that come up while learning the Megilah.The questions and answers are based on a very wide range of sources. He also includes many nice ideas of his own to various problems. It is very organized clear and to the point. He also printed three other earlier works, the first beingInvei Hagefen first printed in 1863, the second being Rishon Mekor Hachaim first printed in 1697. He also reprinted some Teshuvos and articles related to Shavous from his grandfather Rabbi Shmuel Hubner, author of the Nimukei Shmuel. [A few copies of this work are still available; email me for more details].

This year a few more important works related to Megilas Rus were just printed. First worth mentioning is the Mikraot Gedolot Haketer from Bar Ilan. This series began a few years back and has fallen asleep for awhile. Last week the project “woke up” and five volumes were released in the small size. The point of this series is to offer the most accurate texts of various Rishonim on Tanach based on all the manuscripts.

Another excellent work just printed is the Eshkol Hakofer from Rabbi Avraham Sbba, author of the Tzeror Hamor (259 pp.). This work had been printed many years ago based on one manuscript but this edition is printed based on numerous manuscripts and contains many pieces not found in the printed edition. This work is simply beautifully done, with a nice introduction and many useful notes.

Another great work that just was printed for the first time was the Toldos Shlomo by Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (436 pp.).

Another new work on Megilas Rus is calledMegilas Rus Im Otzros Hameforshim (482 pp.) This work contains a few sections the first part contains separate extensive perushim on Targum, Rashi, Rav Yosef Kara and Ibn Ezra’s perushim. Besides for this, it contains an extensive peuish on the Megilah. Another section has in-depth lengthy discussions on various topics related to the Megilah, Rus and David Hamelech. As the bibliography at the end of the sefer shows it is based on many seforim.

Another work worth mentioning is the Ke-Motzo Shalal Rav on Rus and Shavuos. This work continues in the path of Rabbi Rosenthal’s earlier works on chumash and Yomim Tovim with the same name, collecting and presenting nice material, written clearly, and easy to understand related to Rus and Shavous from famous and less famous works.

Regarding whether or not to stand for the recitation of the Aseres Hadibros, see here. Thanks thanks for Yissachar Hoffman for sending me this. In the work Shiurei Rav Elyashiv on Berachos (p. 93) it says that he says its assur to stand based on this teshuvah of the Rambam. I will add that I davened for many years at Rav Elyashiv’s minyan on shabbos. I always wanted to see if he would sit or stand but he almost always got that aliya – until one time he did not and I was able to see that he indeed stayed seated!

[i] The Rema mentions this minhag earlier (490:9) but not in hilchos Shavous.

Kalir, False Accusations, and More

Kalir, False Accusations, and More by Marc B. Shapiro 1. I now want to return to Kalir and the criticism of me. To recap, I had earlier mentioned how Artscroll originally correctly identified Kalir as post-tannaitic, but later changed what it wrote in order to be in line with Tosafot’s opinion that he was a tanna. Some think that it is wrong to criticize Artscroll by using academic methodology instead of judging them by traditional sources, since they don’t recognize the academic approach. My first response is that this is nonsense and a textbook example of obscurantism. If there is evidence of a certain fact, one can’t say that it is only a fact if it appears in some “traditional” source, and therefore one who ignores this evidence gets a pass. Furthermore, when it comes to Kalir one can also date him using traditional sources.[1] One of these sources is quite fascinating. Whether there is any truth to the event described, I can’t say, but the fact that a traditional source dates him after the tannaitic era is what is important for us at present. This shows that Tosafot’s dating is not the only traditional source in this matter. The source I refer to is the medieval R. Ephraim of Bonn who states that the paytan Yannai, who is usually dated to the seventh century but could even be a few centuries earlier (but still post-tannaitic), was the teacher of Kalir. R. Ephraim notes that Yannai was not the most kind of teachers and he was jealous of his student Kalir, showing that the Sages’ statement that people are jealous of all, except for a son and student (Sanhedrin 105b), can have exceptions. In order to deal with his problem, Yannai decided to terminate Kalir, with extreme prejudice of course. He therefore put a scorpion in Kalir’s sandal which took care of matters. R. Ephraim reports that because of this murder, in Lombardy (Italy) they refused to recite one of Yannai’s hymns.[2] אוני פטרי רחמתים. ואמר העולם שהוא יסוד ר’ יניי רבו של רבי אלעזר בר קליר, אבל בכל ארץ לומברדיאה אין אומרים אותו, כי אומרים עליו שנתקנא בר’ אלעזר תלמידו והטיל לו עקרב במנעלו והרגו. יסלח ה’ לכל האומרין עליו אם לא כן היה. R. Ephraim is the source for this report and as you can see from his final words, he took the report very seriously and literally, declaring that if it wasn’t true then those who spread this rumor were in need of repentance. Israel Davidson, however, claims that to take the report literally would be “absurd”, and the report of the scorpion is merely an “idiom, undoubtedly Oriental in origin, for expressing unfriendliness.”[3] The problem with this is, as we have seen, R. Ephraim and the community of Lombardy did take the report literally, so why should Davidson, living well over a thousand years after the supposed event, know more than people who lived in medieval times?[4] It is one thing to say that the murder never occurred, but that doesn’t mean that the story as told was not meant to be understood literally, and there is every reason to assume that it means what it says. If it happened, it would hardly be the first murder committed by a Jew. Thus, although the story is almost certainly a legend, our reason for making this determination is not because it is impossible to imagine one Jew doing such a thing to another. Another important source is found in R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Mahazik Berakhah, Orah Hayyim 112 (end). Azulai, as we all (should) know, had a keen bibliographical sense, and knew rabbinic history very well. After mentioning how Tosafot and the Rosh state that Kalir was really the tanna R. Eleazar ben Shimon,[5] the Hida quotes R. Isaac Luria as follows: דהפייטן היה בו ניצוץ מנשמת ר’ אלעזר ברבי שמעון. In other words, it is not that Kalir was actually a tanna, but that his soul was connected with R. Eleazar ben Shimon. I presume that this is an attempt to preserve the old tradition identifying the two, while at the same time recognizing that historically they were two different people. We find the same approach among many commentaries that deal with aggadic statements that make all sorts of identifications, of what can perhaps be called the rabbinic “conservation of people.” In other words, there is a tendency to identify biblical figures with other known biblical figures, such as Elijah with Pinhas and Harbonah, Hagar with Keturah, Pharaoh with the King of Nineveh, Yocheved and Miriam with Shifrah and Puah, Mordechai with Malachi[6] and Ezra, Tziporah with the Cushite woman,[7] Balaam with Laban, Daniel and Haman with Memukhan, to mention just a few.[8] I don’t think people should be surprised that also among traditional commentators one can find the viewpoint that these identifications are not to be taken literally[9]—kabbalists are often inclined to see these texts as referring to reincarnation[10]—and some modern scholars have spoken of these identifications as examples of what they term “rabbinic fancy.” Some of these identifications are so far-fetched that I have no doubt that R. Azariah de Rossi and R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes are correct that the Sages who expounded them never intended them to be taken literally.[11] Although I haven’t investigated the matter, I assume one would find the same tendency to non-literal interpretation when dealing with Aggadot that insert historical figures into other biblical episodes, e.g., Balaam and Jethro becoming Pharoah’s advisors, or when the Aggadah identifies spouses, e.g., Caleb marrying Miriam and Rahab marrying Joshua (and having daughters with him[12]). 2. In the previous post I quoted what the late R. David Zvi Hillman said in the name of R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin regarding Saul Lieberman. Some people were incredulous, and this raises the question of how reliable Hillman was and if he would distort things for ideological purposes.[13] I have spoken about him before, and I reproduced his defense of the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah not citing R. Kook.[14] Despite his strong ideological leanings, as of yet I haven’t found any evidence that he would purposely distort. My sense is that he was quite honest in his scholarship (and the issue with R. Zevin and Lieberman might have been something he misunderstood or perhaps R. Zevin wasn’t clear in what he said. It simply is impossible now to reconstruct events.) Even though I believe that Hillman was honest in his scholarship (i.e., not intentionally distorting as is so often the case with haredi writers), we do find that his ideology led him to unfounded conclusions. These are not intentional distortions because he really believed what he was saying, but they are distortions nonetheless. Here is one example. In 1999 a memorial volume appeared called Ohel Sarah Leah. Beginning on p. 246 is an article by Hillman dealing with R. Joseph Saul Nathanson’s view of the International Date Line. In this article, he deals with a letter by R. Zvi Pesah Frank published by R. Menachem M. Kasher. He believes that Kasher added material to the letter so as to align it with his own viewpoint. The fact that Kasher published the letter in 1954, almost seven years before R. Zvi Pesah Frank’s death, does not deter Hillman from his argument. Other than Hillman, I think everyone realizes that if you are going to forge something in another’s name, you don’t do it when they are still alive![15] We can thus completely discount Hillman’s argument and see it as an ideologically based distortion. Despite this defense of Kasher, it must also be pointed out that there are serious questions about the reliability of some things he published. In Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy I mentioned R. Eliezer Berkovits’ claim that the Weinberg letter Kasher published was not authentic. Berkovits clearly thought that Kasher forged it, but when I pressed him to say so openly, he wouldn’t. All Berkovits would say is that Weinberg never wrote such a letter, and it was fraudulent. When I asked, “So R. Kasher forged it?” he replied that he wasn’t going to speculate about this, and would only say that the letter did not exist. Being that Kasher claimed that Weinberg wrote the letter to him, this means that Berkovits was accusing him of forgery, but for whatever reason did not want to say so openly. I have a 1982 letter from Berkovits to another rabbi, and in this letter he is not as circumspect as he was with me. Here he pretty much states that Kasher forged the letter “le-shem shamayim.” בענין מו”ר הגאון זצ”ל אני בטוח שהוא מעולם לא כתב אותם הדברים שהרב כשר מוסר בשמו בנועם. אדרבה יראה לנו את מכתבו של מו”ר זצ”ל. לפני כשנה כתבתי לו בדואר רשום ובקשתי בעד צילום או העתק של מכתבו של הרב וויינברג זצ”ל. עד היום לא קבלתי תשובה ממנו. מבטחני שהדברים שנאמרו ושנכתבו בשמו אינם אמיתייים. בעונותינו הרבים הגענו למצב שגם אנשים ירא שמים וכו’ מורים היתר לעצמם בכל מיני ענינים כשהם חושבים שכל כוונתם לשם שמים היא. והוא רחום יכפר וכו’. In the recently published Genazim u-She’elot u-Teshuvot Hazon Ish, pp. 263ff. the unnamed editor also levels serious הזיוף החמור accusations against Kasher, in a chapter entitled He puts forth a series of claims designed to show that .והנורא another letter Kasher published on the International Date Line, this time a posthumous letter from R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, is also forged. I have to say that in this example, unlike the one dealt with by Hillman, there is at least circumstantial evidence, but no smoking gun. The most powerful proof comes from Kasher himself in which he tells of a meeting with the Hazon Ish and how at that meeting he told the Hazon Ish about the letter he received from R. Isser Zalman in opposition to the Hazon Ish’s position. Yet the letter Kasher publishes from R. Isser Zalman is dated from after the Hazon Ish’s death. There is clearly a problem here, but more likely than assuming forgery is that Kasher was simply mistaken in his description of his visit with the Hazon Ish. Let’s not forget that this element of the account of his visit was published thirty-three years after the event, and it is possible that Kasher didn’t recall everything that was said. The followers of the Hazon Ish have indeed always claimed that his description of his visit, inHa-Kav ha-Ta’arikh ha- Yisraeli (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 13-14, is not to be relied upon. Since his own recollection of his visit is the strongest evidence in favor of Kasher forging R. Isser Zalman’s letter, it is not very convincing. In the previous paragraph I wrote that “this element” of Kasher’s account was published thirty-three years after his visit, so let me explain by what I mean by that. In Ha-Pardes, Shevat 5714, p. 30, soon after the Hazon Ish’s death, he originally published his account. Only when he later published his Kav ha-Ta’arikh ha-Yisraeli did he mention that he told the Hazon Ish that he received letters from R. Zvi Pesah and R. Isser Zalman, and this point is mentioned after his description of his visit. In his original description he mentions nothing about receiving letters, only that R. Zvi Pesah told him his opinion and R. Isser Zalman agreed with this. I think what likely happened is that in the passing decades Kasher forgot that the letters he received only arrived after the Hazon Ish’s death. As mentioned, if you look at what he wrote right after the death of the Hazon Ish, he doesn’t mention any letters, and he even states explicitly that he didn’t have anything in print from R. Zvi Pesah. I think this shows that while Kasher’s recollection was not exact, there is no evidence that he forged the letter. I do, however, have to mention that in the 1977 version of the visit Kasher adds something that is not in the original recollection and must therefore be called into question. In the original recollection he reports that the Hazon Ish began reading Kasher’s work on the dateline and then said that he is tired and asked if he could hold on to the work to read later. In the 1977 version Kasher then adds the following, which shows the Hazon Ish as not very committed to his own position, a point which is at odds with everything else we know about the Hazon Ish and the dateline: והוסיף בזה הלשון: נו, יעדער מעג (קען) זיך האלטען ווי ער פערשטעהט. [כל אחד רשאי (יכול) להחזיק כפי הבנתו]. Kasher was also involved in another problematic episode related to his book Ha-Tekufah ha-Gedolah, which is dedicated to showing the messianic significance of the State of Israel. In the book, pp. 374ff., he includes a proclamation urging participation in the Israeli elections. This proclamation is signed my many rabbinic greats and states that the State of Israel is the beginning of the redemption. This is a very significant document and is often referred to, because among the signatories are some who were never identified with Religious Zionism. But is the document authentic? Zvi Weinman has shown (and provided the visual evidence) that a number of the rabbis signed a document that did not mention anything about athalta di-geula but instead referred tokibutz galuyot.[16] In Kasher’s book, their names are listed together with those who signed the document referring to athalta di-geula, even though they never agreed with this formulation. This would appear to be a Religious Zionist forgery (unless it is simply a careless error), although it is impossible to know whether Kasher was responsible for this or if he was misled by someone else. If it can ever be proven that Kasher was indeed responsible for a forgery, there is still a possible limud zekhut for this type of behavior (and I mentioned it in a prior post): If you are convinced of the correctness of your position, it is not hard to construct an argument, based on traditional Jewish sources, that false attribution and even forgery is permissible. In the book I am currently working on I bring all sorts of examples of this which I think will be very distressing for readers, as it is in complete opposition to what most of us regard as basic intellectual honesty. Returning to the recently published Genazim u-She’elot u- Teshuvot Hazon Ish, the editor also makes an outrageous accusation and I am surprised that no one has yet publicly protested. The canard is leveled at Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog, whose saintliness was universally acknowledged even by those who opposed his Zionist outlook. It was R. Herzog who in early 1940 flew to London and was able to convince the English government to grant a number of visas for Torah scholars. He was thus directly responsible for saving the lives of, among many others, R. Velvel Soloveitchik and R. Shakh.[17] This fact alone should have been enough to prevent any scurillous accusations directed against R. Herzog. On pp. 226ff. there appears a 1941 letter, dated 24 Elul, from R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin to the Hazon Ish asking him about the problem of Shabbat in Japan for those who had escaped the Nazi clutches. R. Zevin wrote to the Hazon Ish at the request of R. Herzog, who said that only two people in the Land of Israel were expert in this matter, R. Tukatchinzky and the Hazon Ish. There is a good deal that can be said about R. Zevin’s letter and the Hazon Ish’s response, but that is not my concern at present. Yet I must at least mention that the editor provides another letter from the Hazon Ish in which he expresses his displeasure that R. Zevin’s Torah writings had appeared in the newspaper Ha-Tzofeh. According to the Hazon Ish, these should have been published as a special booklet, as it is inappropriate to publish Torah articles in a newspaper that in the end is used to wrap food in. He also mentions that Ha- Tzofeh itself is not suitable, referring obviously to its Religious Zionist outlook. (R. Zevin would, over his lifetime, write hundreds of articles for Ha-Tzofeh, many of which have not yet been collected in book form.) Also noteworthy is that in his reply to R. Zevin the Hazon Ish raises the possibility that the viewpoint of the rishonim would have to be rejected if it turns out that they were mistaken in their understanding of the metziut. העומד עדיין על הפרק הוא אם טעם הראשונים ז”ל הוסד על המחשבה שאין ישוב בתחתית הכדור, ואז נקח עמידה נועזה לנטות מהוראת רבותינו ז”ל ולעשות למעשה היפוך דבריהם הקדושים לנו ולכל ישראל, או שאין לדבריהם שום זיקה לשאלת ישוב התחתון. (In a later letter, quoted on p. 231, we see a different perspective.) In R. Zevin’s letter he mentions why the issue of Shabbat in Japan was so pressing. R. Herzog had recently received a telegram from Kobe, Japan, asking on what day the Jewish refugees should fast.[18] Here is a copy of the telegram, as it appears in David A. Mandelbaum’s Giborei ha- Hayil, vol. 1.

Genazim u-She’elot u-Teshuvot Hazon Ish, p. 227, makes the astounding assertion that this telegram was a scheme cooked up by the Chief Rabbinate (i.e., R. Herzog).This would enable R. Herzog to call a gathering a great Torah scholars at which time he could push them to accept his opinion in opposition to the viewpoint of the “gedolei Yisrael.” It is hard to imagine a more outrageous accusation directed against a man of unquestioned piety such as R. Herzog.

Quite apart from the slander I have just pointed to, the volume also contains a good deal of ideologically based distortion, which is why it is noteworthy that it not only includes the letter from the Hazon Ish to Saul Lieberman (p. 330) that I published inSaul Lieberman and the Orthodox,,[19] but even identifies him in the following respectful way: המכתב נשלח לבן דודו פרופ’ ר’ שאול ליברמן ז”ל מחה”ס תוספתא כפשוטה, ירושלמי כפשוטו וש”ס. Considering how Lieberman is persona non grata in the haredi world, I find this identification, as well as mention of his books, nothing sort of remarkable.[20] In fact, the story gets even more interesting. A couple of months ago volume two of Genazim u-She’elot u-Teshuvot Hazon Ish appeared. Before I was able to get a copy, people emailed me to let me know that this volume contained a lengthy letter from Lieberman to the Hazon Ish. (I thank Ariel Fuss for sending me a copy of the letter.) It appears on pages 207-209 and is really fascinating. Leaving aside the talmudic analysis, the end of the letter shows the different outlooks of these cousins. We see that the Hazon Ish had criticized Lieberman for referring to Prof. Jacob Nahum Epstein as mori ve-rabbi. Lieberman didn’t understand why the Hazon Ish found this objectionable, since Epstein was a pious Jew and Lieberman learnt many things from him, “true Torah and not the path of the maskilim but that of our teachers of blessed memory, who search for the truth in the words of Hazal, in all possible ways, and many obscure places in the Jerusalem Talmud were explained to me precisely through this approach.”[21] Lieberman then turns to another criticism of him by the Hazon Ish, that he was not devoting himself adequately to his Torah study. It is hard to know what to make of this critique, as who was more devoted to his studies than Lieberman. Lieberman defends himself from this accusation, noting: אני לפעמים נופל על הספסל מחוסר אונים מרוב התאמצות ויושב אני לפעמים כמה ימים על סוגיא אחת עם ראש חבוש. Here is Lieberman’s grave, in the Sanhedria cemetery. Note who he is buried next to. (As I mentioned in Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, according to Chaim Herzog, Lieberman was R. Herzog’s closest friend. It is therefore fitting that he be buried next to R. Jacob David.) 3. Regarding the last post, a number of people emailed me pointing out other “immodest” title pages and also learned women that I didn’t mention. I thank all who emailed. Many of the other title pages I knew about and might refer to at a future time, but the post was specifically concerned with censorship of title pages, and this explains the ones I cited. One of the commenters did refer to a title page that I did not know, from a 1731 Hamburg manuscript. See here (the rest of the Haggadah has other interesting pictures). If you ever needed an example of how what we today regard as unacceptable is not necessarily how people hundreds of years ago viewed matters, this is it.[22] Regarding learned women, a great deal has obviously been written about this and I don’t see it as my purpose to simply repeat what others have written elsewhere. I hope that in the prior post (and indeed in all my posts), people find new material and learn things that they wouldn’t know from elsewhere, even those who are experts in the various topics. Since the matter has been raised again, le me mention something that I originally was going to write about. At the last minute I took it out, as I was convinced (by both a scholar who will remain anonymous and Prof. Shamma Friedman) that I was in error. Tosefta Ketubot 4:7 (and the parallel passage in J. Ketubot 5:2) reads: נושא אדם אשה . . . על מנת שתהא זנתו ומפרנסתו ומלמדתו תורה. It then follows by telling us that R. Joshua son of R. Akiva arranged exactly this sort of marriage. I think that if you show this passage to people, and cover up the commentaries, they will translate it to mean that a man can marry a woman on the condition that she will take care of his physical sustenance “and will teach him Torah.” (This is how Neusner translates in his Tosefta and Yerushalmi translation, and is also found in some academic articles.) Yet all of the traditional commentaries understand this text to mean that the woman provides the financial support her husband needs in order that he is able to study Torah on his own. For a while I assumed that this was an apologetic understanding by the commentators, and we know that the Talmud does offer a few examples of learned women. Yet as mentioned, I was convinced of my error.[23] In email correspondence, Friedman also called attention to other unusual Hebrew formulations which don’t mean what they literally say. For example,Yevamot 13:12 Yet this does not mean that .בא על יבמה גדולה תגדלנו :states she has to raise the boy, but only that she has to wait until he is of age to give her a divorce. He also pointed הרי to Nazir 2:6 (and see also 2:5) which uses the language of and this has nothing to do with shaving the עלי לגלח חצי נזיר Nazir. One final point I would like to make about learned women is that before drawing any conclusions about their knowledge, we must be sure that we are not dealing with ghost writers. For example, Dov Katz, Tenuat ha-Mussar (Jerusalem, 1982), vol. 1, p. 242 n. 30, refers to the wife of R. Aryeh Leib Horowitz (the son of R. Israel Salanter) as a “learned woman” based on the introduction she wrote to her deceased husband’s Hayyei Aryeh (Vilna, 1907). Here is the text.

I can’t prove it, but I am very confident that someone wrote this on behalf of the wife, who was a traditional rebbetzin, not a maskilah.

4. In preparation for the trip I am leading to Italy in July (we still have room for some more people, and also for the August trip to Central Europe), I thought it would be helpful to read the letters of R. Ovadiah Bartenura. Right at the beginning of the first letter[24] I found something very interesting. I immediately suspected that this passage would be omitted from a translation directed towards the Orthodox masses. I checked, and lo and behold, the passage is indeed deleted. Here is the text:

Note how R. Ovadiah testifies that while the Jews in Palermo were careful about not drinking non-Jewish wine, which was noteworthy since elsewhere in Italy Jews routinely consumed this, their sexual morality and observance of the Niddah laws left something to be desired. He claims that most young women there were already pregnant at their wedding. Here is how the page appears in the translation by Yaakov Dovid Shulman: This text was censored even though the preface to the book states: “In publishing these letters in their entirety, including the critical comments made by Rabbi Ovadiah Bartenura of those people and practices of which he disapproved, the assumption is made that these criticisms were written to instruct the reader and not to denigrate any individuals.” As you can see, the letter hasnot been published in its entirety, and if one were to go through the text carefully, perhaps some other deleted passages would be discovered.[25] 5. I have done six posts on R. Kook and from email I receive I know that some people want me to return to this. I plan to, but I still have a few more posts to do before I get to that. In the meantime, however, I want to inform readers that a new volume of R. Kook’s writings has just appeared. It is called Ginzei ha-Rav Kook and I thank R. Moshe Zuriel for drawing my attention to it. My sense is that this volume does not have much importance, as much of it, and maybe even the majority, has already appeared in other collections, particularly the Shemonah Kevatzim. I was able to determine this using the R. Kook database, which except for the most recently published material includes all of R. Kook’s writings. I did find one passage (p. 87, no. 85) which I am pretty sure has not yet appeared, even in the most recent writings. It relates back to a point I already called attention to in R. Kook, namely, his privileging of the pious masses over the Torah scholars in certain ways. One rabbinic text that would appear to oppose R. Kook’s conception is the See how R. Kook neutralizes .ולא עם הארץ חסיד :famous Avot 2:5 this text, pointing out that there are a lot of things more important than being a hasid. Here is R. Kook, a member of the rabbinic elite, nevertheless insisting that the am ha-aretz can have just as much holiness as the Torah scholar, be visited by Elijah, and even have ruah ha-kodesh: “ולא עם הארץ חסיד”. אבל מה שהוא למעלה מהחסידות, כמו קדושה וענוה ותחית-המתים וגילוי אליהו ורוח-הקודש, מפני גודל קדושתם הם שוים לכל נפש. כי כל לבבות דורש ד’, ואחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוון לבו לשמים, ומעיד אני עלי שמים וארץ, אמר אליהו, בין איש בין אישה, בין עבד בין שפחה, בין נכרי בין ישראל, הכל לפי מעשיו רוח הקודש שורה עליו. וכיון שלא יצאו שפחה ונכרי מכלל רוח-הקודש, קל-וחומר שלא יצא עם-הארץ שהוא מזרע קודש, מעם ה’ וצבאותיו אשר הוציא ממצרים להיות לו לעם נחלה כיום הזה, סגולה מכל העמים. (The reference to Elijah is from Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu, ch. 9.) P. 112, no. 104, returns to a theme I have also dealt with, that study of halakhic details can be problematic for a mystical personality such as R. Kook.[26] Yet he adds that this is still the job of the righteous ones, and we can see here an autobiographical reflection. אף על פי שלימודם של המצוות המעשיות בדקדוק קיומם מכביד לפעמים הרבה על הצדיקים הגדולים השרויים תמיד באור המחשבה העליונה, מכל מקום מתוך כח היראה העליונה שבלבבם, מתגברים הם גם על שפע קדושתם, ועוסקים בתורה ובמצוות במעשה ובדקדוק, אף על פי שהם צריכים למעט על ידי זה את אורם העליון. Can we also see an autobiographical reflection on p. 114, no. 106, where R. Kook speaks about the righteous who want the world to recognize their greatness and holiness? לפעמים מתגלה בצדיקים גדולים תשוקה גדולה, שיכירו הכל את מעלתם ושיאמינו בקדושתם. ואין תשוקה זו באה כלל משום גסות הרוח או אהבת כבוד המדומה, כי אם מפני החשק הפנימי של התפשטות האור הטוב שבהם על חוג היותר רחב האפשרי. וזהו מעין התשוקה של הופעת החכמה על ידי המצאות טובות וספרים טובים שכשהיא אידיאלית היא עומדת בנקודה היותר עליונה שבאור הנשמה הא-להית. He then returns to the difficulty the Tzaddik has with halakhic particulars (p. 115): ישנם צדיקים גדולים כאלה, שהם למעלה מכל שרש הדינים, ועל כן אינם יכולים ללמוד שום דבר הלכה. וכשהם מתגברים על טבעם ועוסקים בעומקא של הלכה, מתעלים למעלה גדולה לאין חקר, והם ממתקים את הדינים בשרשם. [1] R. Yaakov Yisrael Stoll, in his recently published Segulah (Jerusalem, 2012), pp. 50ff., takes it as a given that Kalir is post-tannaitic. [2] Israel Davidson, Mahzor Yannai (New York, 1919), p. xlix [3] Ibid, p. xxv. [4] Unless R. Ephraim was misinformed about Lombardy, this practice must have changed at some time because we know that in Lombardy the piyut was recited on Shabbat ha-Gadol. See R. Moshe Rosenwasser, Le-Hodot u-le-Halel (Jerusalem, 2001), p. 379. As Rosenwasser points out, R. Ephraim is also the source for the story of R. Amnon of Mainz writing U-Netaneh Tokef. [5] This is impossible as in one of his hymns he tells us that is father’s name is Jacob. See R. Simon Federbush, Ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit be-Yisrael u-ve-ha-Amim (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 70-71. [6] This identification explains how in Italy Jews with the Hebrew name Mordechai were sometimes given the vernacular name ,(See Cecil Roth, Venice (Philadelphia, 1930 .(מלאכי =) Angelo p. 168. [7] This identification is rejected by Rashbam. See his commentary to Num. 12:1. Regarding Rashbam’s comment, see the lengthy discussion of Lockshin in his translation. While Rashbam rejects the notion that the Cushite is Tzipporah, he apparently has no problem repeating the legend that “Moses reigned in the land of Cush for forty years and married a certain queen [from there].” He knew this legend from the work Divrei ha-Yamim de-Moshe Rabbenu, although as Lockshin mentions, it is also found in more “kosher” sources, such as Yalkut Shimoni. Ibn Ezra also cites the legend of Moses ruling in Cush in his commentary to Num. 12:1, despite the fact that in his commentary to Ex. 2:22 he writes: Do not believe what is written in the book called the History of Moses. I will give you a general rule. We should not rely on any book not written by prophets or by the sages who transcribed traditions passed on to them. We definitely should not rely on these books when they contradict reason. The same applies to the Book of Zerubavel, the Book of Eldad ha-Dani, and similar compositions. In a previous post I discussed Rashi’s understanding of the word Cushite, and how it is not to be taken literally. Ibn Ezra does take it literally (and still thinks that it refers to Tziporah). As with Rashi, he assumes that Cushites are not very attractive and explains that Miriam and Aaron, who spoke negatively about Moses, “suspected that Moses refrained from sleeping with Tzipporah only because she was not beautiful.” (Commentary to Num. 12:1). Regarding the Cushite woman, I found something strange in R. Joseph Solomon of Posen’s Yesod Yosef (Munkacs, 1907), p. 8b. This is how he explains Aaron’s and Miriam’s talk against Moses on account of the Cushite he married (Num. 12:1): מרים ואהרן רצו לתלות בוקי סריקי במשה ולהטיל מום בקדשי’ לפי דברי התרגום שני שפירש אשה כושית מלכה כוש שטימא את ברית קודש ובעל בת אל נכר וכל ביאה שאינה בהיתר נקרא הוצאת זרע לבטלה R. Joseph Solomon goes on to explain why Aaron and Miriam were mistaken in their judgment. [8] See R. Joseph Zekhariah Stern, Zekher Yehosef, Orah Hayyim no. 121 (p. 34a). R. Shmuel Avraham Adler, Aspaklaryah, vol. 27, s.v. shem, pp. 119ff [9] R. Menahem Azariah of Fano acknowledges that when it comes to Elijah-Pinhas, most scholars understood this literally. Yet he rejected this position, perhaps because it would require Pinhas to have lived at least 350 years.) SeeAsarah Ma’amarot, Hikur Din section 4 ch. 18: ואף על פי שיש מרבותינו אומרים בפשיטות פינחס הוא אליהו אין הדבר כמחשבת המון החכמים שפינחס לא מת ושקיים בעצמו שנוי השם. [10] Opponents of gilgul had argued that if this was an authentic Jewish doctrine, certainly the Talmud would have mentioned it. R. Elijah Benamozegh argues that these texts, identifying various people as one and the same, are the proof that the talmudic sages indeed accepted reincarnation. He assumes that for many of these passages, where the different eras of the individuals mentioned is an obvious problem, no one with any intelligence can believe that the Talmud meant these passages to be understood literally. The meaning must therefore be reincarnation. See Eimat Mafgia, vol. 2, p. 2b: איככה יוכל האיש לא טח עיניו מראות להניח כי לבן הארמי אשר חי בימי יעקב אבינו הוא עצמו בלעם הרשע, אשר היה בימי בני בניו האחרונים . . . וחירם שהיה בימי שלמה הוא אשר היה בימי יחזקאל . . . כיצד נוכל לייחס הבנתם הפשטית לחכמינו הקדושים אשר גם לפי דעות המנגדים לא יתכן לתלות בהם חסרון ושגעון כ”כ עצום כאשר כל אחד יראה בדמיונות האלה. There are two books entitled Eimat Mafgia, one by Benamozegh and the other by R. Moses ben Ephraim of Brody (Warsaw, 1888). Both of them are directed against R. Leon Modena’s Ari Nohem. אימת מפגיע על ארי :The title comes from Shabbat 87b [11] Meor Einayim, ch. 18; Mevo ha-Talmud, ch. 21, in Kol Sifrei Maharatz Chajes, vol. 1. In other words, the peshat is not literal. According to traditional commentaries, we find plenty of examples of this in the Bible also. Thus, when the Torah speaks of God’s outstretched arm, Maimonides insists that the peshat is that these words are not to be understood literally. Many have argued that even according to the peshat “an eye for an eye” is not to be understood literally. I think that most people today who read the book of Job will conclude, as did Maimonides, that the peshat is that it is not a historical tale. [12] See Megillah 14b, Tosafot, Megillah 3b s.v. melamed, Maharsha, Hidushei Aggadot, Eruvin 63b (why does he quote Tosafot and not the Talmud inMegillah 14b?), R. Samuel Strashun’s note to Eruvin 63a. [13] Some people might have been led to thinking this because his letter was published in Yeshurun, which has in the past published articles that have engaged in censorship and ideological distortion. In the most recent volume, Nisan 5772, which also contains the Hillman letter, we find another instance of the disrespect for Torah scholars that is routine, and almost required, in haredi literature, and which in previous posts I have provided numerous examples of. (I refer obviously to Torah scholars not in the haredi camp.) On pp. 456-467, there are letters from five deceased rabbis to R. put after זצ”ל Avraham Zeleznik. Four of them have the acronym and instead ,זצ”ל their name. The only one who doesn’t merit is the Zionist R. Avraham Shapira (who , ז”ל is given incidentally was by far the most distinguished Torah scholar of the five.) R. Shapira also wasn’t provided with a short biography, presumably because then his position as Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz ha-Rav and Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel would have to be mentioned. [14] See here. With regard to Hillman, in thispost I misstated his genealogy. Prof. Shlomo Zalman Havlin wrote to me as follows: יש לתקן: הגרד”צ אינו נכד של הגרמ”מ חן הי”ד כפי שכתב [ע”פ האיזכור מבטאון חב”ד שהשתבש.] הוא בנו של ד”ר אשר הילמן בעל משרד רו”ח בת”א, נינו של הגרד”צ, רבה הידוע של צ’רניגוב, אביו של הרמ”מ. אגב, גם המשוררת זלדה [מישקובסקי] היתה נכדת הגרד”צ מצ’רניגוב, ואף אחיינית האדמו”ר האחרון מליובאוויטש.מאחיו של הגרמ”מ היה הרב אברהם חן, שהיה סופר מעולה, מחבר ‘במלכות היהדות’, קונטרס יפה ומרגש על אביו הגאון. היה רבה של שכונת בית הכרם [כמדומה שהיתה זו שכונה שלא נזקקה לרב]. מעניין לעניין, כדאי להוסיף, כי לגרמ”מ דובר בשעתו שידוך עם בתו של ר’ חיים מבריסק. לצ’רניגוב בא שליח להכיר את החתן המיועד, ולפי התיאורים ששמעתי ,הוא היה כנראה הגאון ר’ זלמן סענדר, אביו של הגאון ר’ אברהם בעל דבר אברהם, ורבה של קובנה [הוזכר ג”כ במאמר זה]. וכמה נשים ממשפחת הגרד”צ נסעו לבריסק להכיר את הכלה ומשפחתה. בגלל שיבושי הדואר הרוסי, חשבו בצ’רניגוב שאין תשובה, בעוד התשובה החיובית נדדה לעיר אחרת, והשידוך כידוע לא יצא אל הפועל. אגב, שמעתי, כי הנשים ממשפחת הגרד”צ כששבו אמרו, שלאור המסופר על גדולת ר’ ‘חיים וכו’, הרי כאשר שמעוהו בתפילת ערבית, אמרו, אצל אבא רואים יותר אפילו ב”אשר יצר [15] See the response to Hillman by R. Ephraim Greenbaum (Kasher’s grandson), in Ohel Leah Sarah, pp. 942-943. [16] Mi-Katovitz ad Heh be-Iyar (Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 130ff. [17] See A. Bernstein et al., Yeshivat Mir: Ha-Zerihah be- Fa’atei Kedem (Bnei Brak, 1999), vol. 1, pp. 218-219. [18] One of my high school teachers was with the Mir yeshiva during the War. He told us how on Yom Kippur some people actually fasted for two days, eating pahot mi-ke-shiur after the first day so that they would be able to fulfill both the opinion of R. Herzog and the rabbis aligned with him as well the Hazon Ish’s view. Fasting two days on Yom Kippur is actually not new. Ibn Ezra records how certain people did it in medieval times. He minces no words about what he thinks of them. See Sefer ha-Ibur, ed. Halbertam, pp. 4a-b: ואם טען טוען הלא אתם אומרים כי שני ימים טובים צוו לעשות קדמונינו בעבור הספק למה לא קבעתם צום כפור שני ימים גם יש טפשי עולם מחברינו שיתענו שני ימים ואני אראה להם שלא יועיל להם תעניתם כי הוא שוא ושקר. [19] This letter was previously printed in Sefer Zikaron Tuv Moshe (Bnei Brak, 2008), p. 253, and here too Lieberman is referred to respectfully. This book does not inform the reader where it found this letter, although Genazim u-She’elot u- Teshuvot Hazon Ish informs us that its source is Sefer Zikaron Tuv Moshe. I know that a number of copies of Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox made their way around Bnei Brak, and one of them apparently found its way to the editor of Sefer Zikaron Tuv Moshe. [20] With reference to the Hazon Ish’s family, inSaul Lieberman and the Orthodox I noted how the Steipler stated that one should not study Lieberman’s books since he left the Orthodox world. Last year a new edition of the Tosefta was published and included some questions to R. Chaim Kanievsky. In the original question the authors spoke negatively about Lieberman. When they gave the page with their question and R. Hayyim Kanievsky’s reply to the typist (who might even have with reference to the להשמיט been a woman) they added the word comment about Lieberman. Perhaps this was because they didn’t want people to know about the family connection between the Hazon Ish and Lieberman. However, the typesetter didn’t ,להשמיט understand their intention and included the word thinking that this word was to be added to the text. Here is the page (click to enlarge, or see detail directly below it). Portions of the letter of the Hazon Ish to Lieberman, referred to on this page, are also found in Kovetz Iggerot Hazon Ish, vol. 3, no. 2.

I just mentioned women typists, which is common in the haredi world (Kitvei R. Weinberg vol. 1, which was printed by a Satmar company, was typed by a woman.) Let me now turn to what I think is an example of a woman translator, and I thank Elchonon Burton for bringing this text to my attention. Here are two pages from R. Shakh’sLule Toratekha.

In it he mentions how the Hafetz Hayyim famously referred to Adam ha-Kohen as yemah shemo. Adam ha-Kohen was the pen name of Abraham Dov Baer Lebensohn, and for more on how the Hafetz Hayyim viewed him, see S.’s post here. Note how R. Shakh שם רשעים to Adam ha-Kohen’s name. This stands for שר”י adds the name of the wicked shall rot” – Prov. 10:7) and is“) ירקב only applied to the most wicked.

Here is how this passage appears in Artscroll’s English translation, Rav Shach on Chumash. means and assumed שר”י The translator did not understand what that it was part of his name, creating a previously unknown maskil, Adam HaKohen Sherry. Based on this error, I assume that the initial translation was done by a woman who knew modern Hebrew but not “rabbinic code.” The final translator, who is a talmid hakham, probably just revised the initial translation. Now knowing anything about the Haskalah, when he saw the name Sherry it didn’t raise a red flag leading him to check the original. S. pointed out to me that in the Wikipedia entry for Yimach Shemo, Adam HaKohen Sherry also makes an appearance.

[21] While on the topic of Lieberman, let me note that he has an unknown article in Otzar ha-Hokhmah 10 (1934), pp. 83-84, In this short article he criticizes some of what ..ש. ל signed R. Leopold Greenwald wrote about the Jerusalem Talmud. I refer to this article as “unknown” because I have never seen anyone refer to it, and it is not found in Tuvia Preschel’s bibliography of his writings included in Sefer ha-Zikaron le- Rabbi Shaul Lieberman, ed. Shamma Friedman (New York and Jerusalem, 1993). [22] After writing these words I saw that the title page of this haggadah was included in Leon Wieseltier’s article in the most recent Jewish Review of Books (Spring 2012), which is presumably where the commenter saw it. See here. See also this post regarding a different Haggadah, and see also Dan’s post here. Here are some other pictures that I think people will find interesting. They appear in R. Leon Modena’sTzemah Tzadik (Venice, 1660). This is not found on hebrewbooks.org but is on Otzar ha-Hokhmah (at least for now). This particular copy was originally part of Elkan Nathan Adler’s collection. (Adler used for his middle name the name of his father, R. Nathan Adler, chief rabbi of England. This was not unusual. To give another example, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch’s father’s name was Raphael.) Here is Adler’s book plate. His Hebrew name was Elhanan. From Tzemah Tzadik, here is an illustration showing love of people. Here is one showing love of man and wife. Here is an “immodest” picture showing mermaids, which Modena, like so many others of his time, believed in. Modena’s name does not appear on the title page ofTzemah Tzedek, but he reveals his authorship at the beginning of ch. יהודה :where first letters of the first sixteen words read ,1 אריה ממודינא Here is the page. [23] He had already corrected Tal Ilan in this regard. See “A Good Story Deserves Retelling – The Unfolding of the Akiva Legend,” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 3 (2004), p. 85 n. 96. [24] Darkhei Tziyon (Kolomea, 1886), pp. 5a-b [25] As part of my preparations for the trip I have also been reading Elliot Horowitz’ many important articles on Italy. Not long after finding the censored text I saw that Horowitz had already discussed this passage and showed that there is indeed a history of omitting and distorting it. See “Towards a Social History of Jewish Popular Religion: Obadiah of Bertinoro on the Jews of Palermo,” Journal of Religious History 17 (1992), pp. 140ff. While the examples Horowitz discussed are motivated by a Victorian style of writing, the example I give is probably motivated by a desire to shield the masses from the knowledge that even in pre-Reform Europe violation of halakhah was in many places a common phenomenon. It never ceases to amaze me how little knowledge of history some otherwise very intelligent people have, which I guess means that the censorship and rewriting of history is having an effect. Not long ago I was with someone who had spent a number of years in yeshiva, and he really believed that in 19th century Eastern Europe the porters and wagon drivers were all great talmidei hakhamim whose free time was devoted to mastering Shas. [26] See also Tomer Persico, “Ha-Rav Kook: Al Tzadikim Gedolim ve-Yishrei Lev – be-Ma’alah ha-Hasagah ha-Mistit,” Moreshet Yisrael 5 (2008), available here.

Post-script by S. of On the Main Line: Two points may be of further interest.

1) Regarding the Western Askenazic custom of using the father’s name as a middle name ala the aforementioned R. Hirsch and Elkan Nathan Adler, E. N.’s two older half brothers also used their father’s name, Nathan, as middle names; there was Marcus Nathan Adler, best known for his edition of Benjamin of Tudela’s Travels. In addition, Chief Rabbi Herman Adler also used it as a middle name, especially in his earlier years. In his university matriculation record from 1856 he is listed as “Hermann Nathan Adler.” 2) In addition to the coded acrostic self-reference by the author of Zemach Zedek in the opening lines referred to above R. Yehuda Aryeh Modena also refers to ,(יושר האהבה וכו‘) נודע :himself in the opening lines of the hakdamat ha-mekhaber .ביהודה אלקים ובישראל אריה שאג

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Some Remarks On Aristotle, Dante Alighieri, Immanuel of Rome, R. Moshe Botarel and Bertrand Russell

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Some Remarks On Aristotle, Dante Alighieri, Immanuel of Rome, R. Moshe Botarel and Bertrand Russell .בין דין לדין by: Yitzhak, of For nearly a millennium, the name “Aristotle” has resonated within Jewish culture (as within European culture generally) in a way difficult for we moderns to fully grasp. Not merely a philosopher (or even the Philosopher, as he is often designated), he represented (accurately and justly, or otherwise) a weltanschauung, or even a cluster of them: rationalism, scientism, materialism, skepticism, atheism. In this essay, we discuss a miscellaneous variety of perspectives toward Aristotle found in our tradition.

R. Moshe Botarel

R. Baruch Halevi Epstein makes the odd claim that Aristotle is esteemed by the Kabbalists, citing R. Moshe Botarel as swearing to his great love of the Philosopher, and bestowing superlative encomiums upon him: ובכלל קנה לו אריסטו מקום חשוב בין … המקובלים, עד אשר אחד מגדולי החכמה הזאת, רבי משה בוטריל (ספרדי), בפירושו לספר יצירה (כ”ו ב’) מושיבו לאריסטו “בעדן גן החיים” ואומר: חיי ראשי, אני אוהבו אהבה שלמה, כי היה אב בחכמה, ובהרבה ממאמריו הוא מתאים עם דעת רבותינו, ומעוצם שכלו הבהיר גזר משפטים ודברים צודקים, וכבר אמרו חז”ל חכם עדיף מנביא, וזה האיש היה סגולת הפלוסופיא, שלכל טענה הביא ראיה, ואם הוא יוני, השתדל בכל זאת לקיים אופן האחדות הממשלת קונו, וחכמת הפלוסופיא הטהורה קשורה בחכמת הקבלה

I have been unable to locate this particular passage within R. Moshe Botarel’s commentary, although he certainly writes quite warmly of Aristotle throughout, and he even insists that it is actually essential for the ,תורת משה not only is philosophy not incompatible with understanding of Kabbalah, since “by G-d, the wisdom of philosophy is connected to the wisdom of Kabbalah like a flame to a coal”: אמר משה כבר התבאר כי ידיעת מהות הדבר וידיעת מציאות הם שני דברים מתחלפים ולכן לא יכנס שום אדם בזה הפרד”ס שלא עיין בחכמת הפילוסופיא כי הא-להים חכמת הפילוסופיא נקשרה בחכמת הקבלה כמו שלהבת בגחלת. והיום ראיתי לבני ציון היקרים שדלת זאת החכמה לפניהם ננעלת וידמה לעם ציון שאם יחקרו בחכמת הפילוסופיא ישימו תורת משה פלסתר ודרך רמיה ואין זה כי תורתנו הקדושה נקראת פלוסופיא הטהורה …[1] R. Epstein neglects to mention that R. Moshe Botarel was a most colorful and dubious character; from his Jewish Encyclopedia article: He studied also medicine and philosophy; the latter he regarded as a divine science which teaches the same doctrines as the Cabala, using a different language and different terms to designate the same objects. He extols Aristotle as a sage, applying to him the Talmudic sentence, “A wise man is better than a prophet”; and he censures his contemporaries for keeping aloof from the divine teachings of philosophy. …

He believed in the efficacy of amulets and cameos, and declared that he was able to combine the names of God for magical purposes, so that he was generally considered a sorcerer. He asserted that by means of fasting, ablution, and invocation of the names of God and of the angels prophetic dreams could be induced. He also believed, or endeavored to make others believe, that the prophet Elijah had appeared to him and appointed him as Messiah. In this rôle he addressed a circular letter to all the rabbis, asserting that he was able to solve all perplexities, and asking them to send all doubtful questions to him. In this letter (printed by Dukes in “Orient, Lit.” 1850, p. 825) Botarel refers to himself as a well-known and prominent rabbi, a saint, and the most pious of the pious. Many persons believed in his miracles, including the philosopher Ḥasdai Crescas.

The author of the “circular letter”[2] was indeed not lacking in self-esteem:

האדנא אנא משדרנא לכל רבניא דישראל להחזיק בתורת משה גולת האריאל מצד חכמתנו המפורסמת הרמה והנשגבה שהבורא יתברך נתנה לנו מצד אהבה. אנחנו גוזרים את כל אחי הרבנים שבכל עיר ועיר לשלוח אל כבודנו כל הספיקות שהם מסופקים, כי יש לאל ידנו להתיר כל ספק ממעמקים, ואי לא עבדי הכי אנא מזמנא להו קמי קודשא בריך הוא ליום דינא אשר ארזים לא עממוהו. אנא הוא היושב על כסא ההוראות למופת ולאות, המפורסם ברבנים זה כמה שנים, והוא באחד המיוחד מסנהדרי גדולה העומדת בלשכת הגזית במקדש הקדוש והמקודש החסיד שבחסידים, כבר נשלמו לו עשרה נסיונות, ליה אנחנו מודים, ראש תוכני ישראל וגאולת אריאל, משפטיו אמת לגדולי אומות העולם, מי הקשה וישלם. משה בוניאק בוטריל[3] in addition to a megalomaniac, the standard scholarly ,ספרים וסופרים As noted in a thread on appraisal of R. Moshe Botarel considers him an egregious and incredibly brazen forger, attributing entire Kabbalistic works that he has actually made up out of whole cloth to various Babylonian Geonim and other early authorities. Prof. Simha Assaf declares that of those (particularly Kabbalists, mostly in thirteenth century Southern France) who have done this, our author is first and foremost: בין אלו שיחסו לגאונים וראשונים דברים שלא היו ולא נבראו תופס החכם הידוע ר’ משה בוטריל מקום ראש וראשון. בפירושו לספר יצירה הוא מביא דברים מ”ספר הנקוד הגדול אשר חברו רב אשי בבבל והוא נמצא היום בישיבתינו” (דף מ’ ע”ב), ומספר הנקוד “שכתב הרב ר’ אהרן המקובל הגדול ראש ישיבת בבל” (דף ז’ א’; כ”א ב’) ומה ש”כתב הרב המקובל הגדול ר’ אהרן ראש ישיבת בבל בספרו הנקרא ספר הפרדס” (דף ז’ א’; י”ב ב’; כ”ו ב’; ל”ג א’; ל”ח א’ ועוד) כן הוא מזכיר כמה פעמים את ספר הקמיצה לרב האיי (דף כ”ח ב’; ל”ב ב’; מ’ ב’; מ”ג ב’) ומיחס לו גם ספר בשם “קול ד’ בכח”; הוא מביא גם מה ש”כתב רטרונאי (כנראה רב נטרונאי) בספר התרשיש” (י”ג א’), ובמקום אחר הוא מביא פירוש שנאמר על ידי “רב נחשון ריש מתיבתא בשאלתא דבני בבל”, וזה הוא רק חלק קטן מן המחברים והחבורים הבדויים שהוא מביא בפירושו לספר יצירה וביתר כתביו. והנה עד כאן חשבנו שבוטריל הלך בדרך הזאת רק בשדה הקבלה, שבה לא היה מהלך יחידי כי הלכו בה גם אחרים לפניו ולאחריו, אולם מסר לי חברי פרופ’ שלום שבכתב יד הוואטיקאן מספר441 מצא מאמר פילוסופי משלו שכלו מזויף ומביא בו חבורים פילוסופיים שלא באו לעולם, וכן מצא בכתב יד מוסאיוב שבירושלים קטע גדול מספר בלתי ידוע של בוטריל המלא מאמרי אגדה בדויים. ועתה נראהו בקונטרוס שלפנינו כשהוא מוציא מתוך גנזיו גם תשובות שהוא מיחסן לגאוני בבל המפורסמים, תשובות שחותם יד בוטריל טבוע בהן.[4]

As briefly noted in the aforementioned Jewish Encyclopedia article, among R. Moshe Botarel’s putative accomplishments is the seduction of Rav Hasdai Crescas to belief in his extraordinary .criticizesR ספרים וסופרים piety, and perhaps even his pseudo-Messiahship;a commenter on for glossing over R. Moshe ,משיחי השקר ומתנגדיהםBinyamin Shlomo Hamburger, author of Botarel’s full resume – “Kabbalist, Messiah, forger” – and for neglecting to mention a warm letter of support for him authored by R. Hasdai Crescas:

מאידך, דבר תימה היה לי שלא נשתנה ממהדו”ק למהדו”ב [של הספר “משיחי השקר ומתנגדיהם”]. בספר מוגש פרק המוקדש לדמותו של משיח שקר אלמוני שהופיע בספרד אחרי שנת ה’קנ”א. הפרק המעורפל מוגש תחת הכותרת ‘הדרשה שלא הובנה’, ומוגש תחת דמותו של ר’ חסדאי קרשקש כ’גדול הדור’ ההוא. שמו של המשיח המסתורי נקרא ‘משה’ (ללא שם לוואי), ומובלט המשפט הבא: ‘לא ברור מה ידע ר’ חסדאי עצמו מכל ההשתוללות המשיחית וכיצד התייחס אליה…”. ואני הקטן, נבזה וחדל אישים, תמה כולי: הכיצד אישתמיט מידיעתו של הרבש”ה [ר’ בנימין שלמה המבורגר] רשמו המלא של ר’ משה בוטריל, המקובל, המשיח, הזייפן? האם יצירתו על ס’ היצירה שנתקבלה בספרות ישראל טיהרתו? זאת ועוד אקרא, הכיצד נשמט מכתב הבשורה- תמיכה החם לבוטריל שפרסם הרח”ק ונדפס בבית המדרש ליעלינק (חדר שישי מסוף עמ’ 141 ואילך)? ואדיין נקפני לבי לומר שמא לא ראה הרבש”ה לידיעה זו, אולם מצאתי בספרו של יוסף שפירא ‘בשבילי הגאולה’ (ירושלים תש”ז, ח”א קמד-קמז), אשר כל המעיין יראה את השימוש הרב שעשה בו הרבש”ה, פירוט ארוך ומדוייק של כל השתשלות פרשת בוטריל ותמיכת הרח”ק. וצ”ע.

Rav Hasdai Crescas’s letter, as printed by R. Adolf Jellinek, in which he endorses R. Botarel demonstrated dramatically true prophecy, and surviving ,גילוי אליהו as having experienced :שמח וטוב לב being hurled into a flaming furnace, exiting ויהי בשנת חמשת אלפים ומאה וחמשים ושלש לבריאת עולם ויהי בשנת אלף ושלש מאות וחמש ועשרים לחרבן בית המקדש שיבנה במהרה בימינו, כסליו בהיותנו בקורפו, הגיעו אלינו כתבים ששלח ר’ חסדאי קרשקש מטוניס דעו לכם כי מעניי הוא אמת והקהל הקדש קהל בורגיש שהיא בספרד כתבים כי הוא אמת כי העידו עליו כי ממשה ועד משה לא קם כמשה ובא אליו אליהו הנביא ז”ל ומשח אותו בשמן המשחה ואמר לו ישראל כי בניסן יהיו לכם אותות ומופתים גדולים, ומלך ספרד שלח אחריו השר שלו ואמר שיתן לו אות אמר לו שילך לביתו וימצא בנו מת, הלך לביתו ומצא בנו מת כמו שאמר לו הנביא, חזר ואמר לו המות והחיים מהשמים, אמר לו שיחזור עוד לביתו וימצא שמתה אשתו, וכן היה חזר אליו עוד, אמר כשילך לביתו ימות גם הוא בעצמו וכן היה. והמלך היה מדבר עם הנביא והנה כסהו הענן והיו שומעין המלאך שהיה מדבר עמו תוך הענן ועשה אותות ומופתים גדולים בעיניהם והעידו עליו ממשה ועד משה לא קם כמשה. אחר כן אמר לו המלך אם הוא אמת כי אתה נביא אני רוצה לשרוף אותך באש וכן עשה. מיד צוה ועשו כבשן אש והסיקוהו ג’ ימים וג’ לילות והשליכוהו בתוך כבשן האש ויצא ממנו שמח וטוב לב. באותה שעה ראו ויאמינו בד’ ובמשה עבדו ונביאו, והוא היה בן חמש ועשרים שנה ומתחלה לא היה יודע לשון הקדש בצחות ועתה שלמדו אליהו הנביא זכור לטוב יודע לדבר לשון הקדש והוא ענו ושפל רוח צדיק וישר שלם במדותיו חכם ועשיר וגבור וחסיד בכל מעשיו נקי כפים ובר לבב בן טובים זרע אנשים ראוי והגון לשכן עליו רוח ד’.[5]

Here is Prof. Ya’akov Zussman’s sarcastic, dismissive appraisal of R. Moshe Botarel, in the course of which he notes that “that critical thinker, Hida” already dismissed him as unreliable, and that R. Moshe Botarel’s forgeries – “the fruit of a diseased imagination” – are sometimes crude and ridiculous, but occasionally “nearly perfect” efforts. כל המכיר אף במקצת את כתבי בוטריל שבדפוס ושבכתבי יד, יצדיק ללא פקפוקים את הערכתו של אותו חכם בקורתי, החיד”א, שרשם באחת מרשימותיו הפרטיות “רמ בוטריל אין לסמוך עליו”. הערכה זו על בוטריל חוזרת ונישנית ביתר חריפות אצל חוקרים שונים שטיפלו בפירושו לספר יצירה – החבור היחידי משל בוטריל שהיה מוכר להם. לאחר פרסום תשובות הגאונים המזויפות של בוטריל על ידי אסף וגילוי חבוריו האחרים בכתבי-יד, לא נותרו כל ספקות בטיבו ודרכו של חכם זה. ואם עוד היו מחברים שפקפקו במסקנות ברורות אלו והעלו נסיונות כושלים להכשרתו של בוטריל וגם סמכו על “מקורותיו”, יבואו ויעמדו על מידת מהימנותם של “מקורות” אלה מתוך הקונטרסים שלפנינו. … אין למצא בקטעים שלפנינו זיופים גסים כדוגמת הזיופים שבשאר חבורי בוטריל. אין כאן ציטטות מעוררות גיחוך, כדוגמת ספר כבוד ד’ לר’ אליעזר הקליר בו מוזכר רב האי גאון, שבפירושו לספר יצירה. אין גם זיופים כמו “תשובות הגאונים” של בוטריל שעליהן כתב הרב אסף: “להוכיח את זיופן של התשובות האלו חושב אני למיותר וכו’ זיופן מוכח מתוכן”. בקונטרסים שלנו כמעט ואין בין עשרות הציטטות אפילו אחת שאפשר היה לומר עליה מראש וללא בדיקה שזיופה מוכח מתוכה. בוטריל הגיע בקונטרסים אלה לדרגת זייפן מעולה כמעט. הוא משלב בזהירות דברי חכמים אלה באלה, מעתיק מפה ומשם קטעי דברים שאמנם כתב אותם חכם שבשמו מובאים הדברים, אבל הוא מוסיף בהם תוספות שלא היו ולא נבראו, ולעתים קשה לעמוד על הגבול שבין האמת לבין פרי הדמיון החולני.[6] that he (Zussman) is publishing, in קונטרסים Prof. Zussman notes that R. Moshe Botarel, in the contradistinction to the rest of his heretofore known writing, displays an uncharacteristically great deference and humility; he conjectures that the reason for the change lies in the fact that the author was attempting to find favor in his correspondent’s eyes, or to the turn for the worse that his [social] standing and position had taken: בניגוד לכתביו האחרים, שהיו ידועים לנו עד כה, כתוב בוטריל בקונטרסים אלה בהכנעה ובענוה רבה. אין כאן כל רמז לשגעון הגדלות הבולט בכתביו האחרים … אפשר, שאת השינוי בנימת כתיבתו יש לתלות בעובדא שבוטריל כותב כאן אל חכם שהוא משתדל למצוא חן בעיניו. ייתכן גם שיש קשר בין הצטנעותו לבין מצבו ומעמדו שהשתנו לרעה.[7] Prof. Zussman concludes his article by remarking on the uniqueness – unparalleled, to his constitute: a קונטרסים knowledge, in medieval literature – of the portrait that these who, in the course of apparently serious engagement with ,תלמיד חכם Talmudically knowledgeable the Talmudic endeavor, invents and forges sources at will, completely gratuitously, a fact that is instructive as to the author’s strange character:

קונטרסים אלה מהוים תעודה מיוחדת במינה שעד כמה שידוע לי אין דומה לה בספרות של ימי הבינים. לפנינו תלמיד חכם בעל ידיעות בספרות התלמודית אשר אגב עיסוק רציני כביכול בשקלא וטריא של הלכה ממציא ומזייף מקורות להנאתו, ללא כל צורך או מטרה איזו שהיא. עובדא זו יש בה כדי ללמדינו על אישיותו המוזרה של המחבר.[8]

Immanuel of Rome

Returning to R. Epstein, he proceeds to contrast R. Botarel’s positive view of Aristotle with the scathing one of Immanuel of Rome, who relates encountering Aristotle in Hell, to where he [Aristotle] has been condemned for believing in the eternity of the world [he is in the company of, among many others, Plato, who is there for his belief inthe existence of universals]: וָאֹמְרָה אֵלָיו אַחֲלַי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲדֹנִי לְהַרְאוֹתֵנִי הָעוֹלָם שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ אָרֹךְ וְהַתֹּפֶת אֲשֶׁר מֵאֶתְמוֹל לָרְשָׁעִים עָרוּךְ וּלְהוֹדִיעֵנִי מְקוֹם תַּחֲנוֹתִי אַחֲרֵי מוֹתִי וְאֵי זֶה בַּיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי מָשְׁכֵנִי וְאָנֹכִי אָרוּצָה אָחֲרֶיךָ וַיֹאמַר אָנֹכִי אֶעֱשֶׂה כִדְבָרֶיךָ וַיִּשְׁאָלֵנִי הָאִישׁ וַיֹּאמַר אָנָה נִפְנֶה בָרִאשׁוֹנָה וָאַעַן וָאֹמַר הַתֹּפֶת יִהְיֶה רִאשׁוֹן וְהָעֵדֶן יִהְיֶה בָאַחֲרוֹנָה וַיֹאמֶר הָאִישׁ אֵלָי הַחֲזֵק בִּכְנַף מְעִילִי וֶאֱחֹז בּוֹ וְרֶוַח בֵּינִי וּבֵינְךָ לֹא יָבוֹא כִּי הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר שָׁם נִפְנֶה הִיא אֶרֶץ חֲרֵרִים צַלְמָוֶת וְלֹא סְדָרִים נִקְרָא בִשְׁמוֹ עֵמֶק הַפְּגָרִים וָאַחֲזִיק בִּכְנַף מְעִילוֹ וְרַעְיוֹנַי חֲרֵדִים וּמִדֵּי לֶכְתֵּנוּ הָיִינוּ יוֹרְדִים וְהַדֶּרֶךְ דֶּרֶךְ לֹא סְלוּלָה מְעוֹף צוּקָה וַאֲפֵלָה וָאֳרָחוֹת עֲקַלְקַלּוֹת לֹא רָאִינוּ שָׁם רַק בְּרָקִים וְקוֹלוֹת וְלֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ רַק קוֹל כְּחוֹלוֹת וְצָרוֹת כְּמַבְכִּירוֹת וְקָרָאתִי שֵׁם הַיּוֹם הַהוּא יוֹם עֲבָרוֹת וּבָאַחֲרִית הִגַּעְנוּ אֶל גֶּשֶׁר רָעוּעַ וְתַחְתָּיו נַחַל שׁוֹטֵף וּכְאִלּוּ רוֹאָיו גּוֹזֵל וְחוֹטֵף וְאָז הֵחֵלָה נַפְשִׁי לְהִתְעַטֵּף וּבְרֹאשׁ הַגֶּשֶׁר שַׁעַר וְשָׁם לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת וַיֹאמֶר הָאִישׁ אֵלַי זֶה נִקְרָא שַׁעַר שַׁלֶּכֶת וְכָל אֲשֶׁר יִפָּרְדוּ מִן הָעוֹלָם וּבַתֹּפֶת יִהְיֶה מַחֲנֵיהֶם דֶּרֶךְ הֵנָּה פְנֵיהֶם לֹא נָמוּשׁ מֵהֵנָּה שָׁעָה אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם וְנִרְאֶה מִן הַחוֹלְפִים מִן הָעוֹלָם רִבּוֹתַיִם עַל פְּנֵי הָאָרֶץ כְּאַמָּתָיִם וְאֵיךְ יְנַהֲגוּם מַלְאֲכֵי מָוֶת אֶל אֶרֶץ צִיָּה וְצַלְמָוֶת אַחֲרֵי כֵן נִדְרֹשׁ אוֹתָם בִּשְׁחִיתוֹתָם וְתִרְאֶה מָה אַחֲרִיתָם וְאֵין לִתְמֹהַּ עַל עָצְבָּם וְעַל עֹצֶם רָעָתָם וּמַכְאוֹבָם כִּי דוֹר תַּהְפֻּכוֹת הֵמָּה בָּנִים לֹא אֵמֻן בָּם וְלָכֵן חַרְבָּם תָּבֹא בְלִבָּם וּבִהְיוֹתֵנוּ שָׁם יוֹשְׁבִים וְקוֹל חֲרָדוֹת מַקְשִׁיבִים וְהִנֵּה קוֹל כְּחוֹלָה שָמַעְנוּ וְהִבְהִילָנוּ קוֹל אוֹמְרִים אָבְדָה תִּקְוָתֵנוּ נִגְזַרְנוּ לָנוּ וְכַאֲשֶׁר קָרְבוּ אֵלֵינוּ רָאִינוּ מִשְׁלַחַת מַלְאֲכֵי רָעִים חוֹלְפִים יִסְחֲבוּ מִן הַפְּגָרִים לְמֵאוֹת וְלַאֲלָפִים וּבְעָבְרָם דֶּרֶךְ הַשַּׁעַר יֹאמְרוּ לְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶם בֶּן אָדָם אֲשֶׁר מִזִּמְרַת הָעוֹלָם שָׂבָעְתָּ וֵאלֹהִים וַאֲנָשִׁים קָבָעְתָּ וְחוֹק הַמּוּסָר פָּרָעְתָּ הִנֵּה תָקִיא אֵת אֲשֶׁר בָּלָעְתָּ וְתִקְצֹר פְּרִי מַעֲשֶׂיךָ אֲשֶׁר זָרָעְתָּ הִנֵּה שְׂכַר פְּעֻלָתְךָ תִּהְיֶה מוֹצֵא הַנִּכְנָס יִכָּנֵס וְהַיּוֹצֵא אַל יֵצֵא וְהַנִּגְרָרִים וְהַנִּסְחָבִים בְּקוֹל מָרָה יִצְעָקוּ וְנַאֲקַת חָלָל יִנְאָקוּ בְּיָדְעָם כִּי רֹאשׁ פְּתָנִים יִינָקוּ וַיֹאמֶר אֵלַי הָאִישׁ הֲרָאִיתָ הַצֹּאן הָאוֹבְדוֹת אֲשֶׁר מַטָּרָה לְחִצֵּי הַתֹּפֶת עֲתִידוֹת עוֹד תָּשוּב וְתִרְאֶה בְקָרוֹב מִן הָאוֹבְדִים כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם לָרוֹב וְכַאֲשֶׁר הַגֶּשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָּאנוּ בְּתַחְתִּיוֹת אָרֶץ וְכָל רוֹאַי יֹאמְרוּ לִי מַה פָּרַצְתָּ עָלֶיךָ פָּרָץ וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ מְדוּרָה גְדוֹלָה בְּאֶרֶץ מַאְפֵּלְיָה רְשָׁפֶיהָ רִשְׁפֵּי אֵשׁ שַׁלְהֶבֶת יָהּ מְדוּרָתָהּ אֵשׁ וְעֵצִים הַרְבֵּה לַיְלָה וְיוֹמָם לֹא תִכְבֶּה וַיֹאמֶר אֵלַי הָאִישׁ זֹאת הַמְּדוּרָה אֲשֶׁר כְּנַחַל גָּפְרִית בּוֹעֵרָה הִיא לַנְּפָשׁוֹת אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱמִיקוּ סָרָה וְאִם תַּחְפֹּץ לָדַעַת שֵׁם הָרְשָׁעִים אֲשֶׁר בָּה וְאֹדוֹתָם הִתְבּוֹנֵן בִּשְׁמוֹתָם הַחֲקוּקִים בְּמִצְחוֹתָם כַּאֲשֶׁר הִתְבּוֹנַנְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ הַמְּדוּרָה רָאִיתִי וְהִנֵּה שָׁם אַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם וַעֲמוֹרָה … שָׁם אֲרִיסְטוֹטְלוֹס בּוֹשׁ וְנֶאֱלָם עַל אֲשֶׁר הֶאֱמִין קַדְמוּת הָעוֹלָם שָׁם גַּלְיָאנוּס רֹאשׁ הָרוֹפְאִים עַל אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח יַד לְשׁוֹנוֹ לְדַבֵּר בְּמֹשֶׁה אֲדוֹן הַנְּבִיאִים שָׁם אַבּוּנָצָר יוֹמוֹ רָד יַעַן אָמַר כִּי הִתְאַחֲדוּת הַשֵּׂכֶל הָאֱנוֹשִׁי עִם הַשֵּׂכֶל הַנִּפְרָד הוּא מֵהַבְלֵי הַזְּקֵנוֹת וְעַל אֲשֶׁר הֶאֱמִין גִּלְגּוּל הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָאֲנוּנוֹת הַנִּכְרָתוֹת מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם וְאָמַר כִּי יַחֲלִיפוּם אֲנָשִׁים עוֹמְדִים בִּמְקוֹמָם שָׁם אַפְלָטוֹן רֹאשׁ לַמְּבִינִים יַעַן אֲשֶׁר אָמַר כִּי לַיְחָשִׁים וְלַמִּינִים יֵשׁ חוּץ לַשֵּׂכֶל מְצִיאוּת וְחָשַׁב דְּבָרָיו דִּבְרֵי נְבִיאוּת …[9]

Dante Alighieri

R. Epstein does not note that the above is from Immanuel’s pale imitation of his contemporary and countryman Dante Alighieri’s immortal original, which is rather more humane, at least to Aristotle and numerous other classical Greek intellectuals, whom he classifies as “beings of great worth”, but nevertheless places in Limbo, the first circle of Hell,[10] for although they did not sin. Though they have merit, that is not enough, for they were unbaptized, denied the gateway to the faith that you profess. ‘And if they lived before the Christians lived, they did not worship God aright. … ‘For such defects, and for no other fault, [they] are lost, and afflicted but in this, that without hope [they] live in longing.’ Ruppemi l’alto sonno ne la testa un greve truono, sì ch’io mi riscossi come persona ch’è per forza desta; e l’occhio riposato intorno mossi, dritto levato, e fiso riguardai per conoscer lo loco dov’ io fossi. Vero è che ‘n su la proda mi trovai de la valle d’abisso dolorosa che ‘ntrono accoglie d’infiniti guai. Oscura e profonda era e nebulosa tanto che, per ficcar lo viso a fondo, io non vi discernea alcuna cosa. “Or discendiam qua giù nel cieco mondo,” cominciò il poeta tutto smorto. “Io sarò primo, e tu sarai secondo.” E io, che del color mi fui accorto, dissi: “Come verrò, se tu paventi che suoli al mio dubbiare esser conforto?” Ed elli a me: “L’angoscia de le genti che son qua giù, nel viso mi dipigne quella pietà che tu per tema senti. Andiam, ché la via lunga ne sospigne.” Così si mise e così mi fé intrare nel primo cerchio che l’abisso cigne. Quivi, secondo che per ascoltare, non avea pianto mai che di sospiri che l’aura etterna facevan tremare; ciò avvenia di duol sanza martìri, ch’avean le turbe, ch’eran molte e grandi, d’infanti e di femmine e di viri. Lo buon maestro a me: “Tu non dimandi che spiriti son questi che tu vedi? Or vo’ che sappi, innanzi che più andi, ch’ei non peccaro; e s’elli hanno mercedi, non basta, perché non ebber battesmo, ch’è porta de la fede che tu credi; e s’ e’ furon dinanzi al cristianesmo, non adorar debitamente a Dio: e di questi cotai son io medesmo. Per tai difetti, non per altro rio, semo perduti, e sol di tanto offesi che sanza speme vivemo in disio.” Gran duol mi prese al cor quando lo ‘ntesi, però che gente di molto valore conobbi che ‘n quel limbo eran sospesi. … Poi ch’innalzai un poco più le ciglia, vidi ‘l maestro di color che sanno seder tra filosofica famiglia. Tutti lo miran, tutti onor li fanno: quivi vid’ ïo Socrate e Platone, che ‘nnanzi a li altri più presso li stanno; Democrito che ‘l mondo a caso pone, Dïogenès, Anassagora e Tale, Empedoclès, Eraclito e Zenone; e vidi il buono accoglitor del quale, Dïascoride dico; e vidi Orfeo, Tulïo e Lino e Seneca morale; Euclide geomètra e Tolomeo, Ipocràte, Avicenna e Galïeno, Averoìs che ‘l gran comento feo. Io non posso ritrar di tutti a pieno, però che sì mi caccia il lungo tema, che molte volte al fatto il dir vien meno.[11] A heavy thunderclap broke my deep sleep so that I started up like one shaken awake by force. With rested eyes, I stood and looked about me, then fixed my gaze to make out where I was. I found myself upon the brink of an abyss of suffering filled with the roar of endless woe. It was full of vapor, dark and deep. Straining my eyes toward the bottom, I could see nothing. ‘Now let us descend into the blind world down there,’ began the poet, gone pale. ‘I will be first and you come after.’ And I, noting his pallor, said: ‘How shall I come if you’re afraid, you, who give me comfort when I falter?’ And he to me: ‘The anguish of the souls below us paints my face with pity you mistake for fear. ‘Let us go, for the long road calls us.’ Thus he went first and had me enter the first circle girding the abyss. Here, as far as I could tell by listening, was no lamentation other than the sighs that kept the air forever trembling. These came from grief without torment borne by vast crowds of men, and women, and little children. My master began: ‘You do not ask about the souls you see? I want you to know, before you venture farther, ‘they did not sin. Though they have merit, that is not enough, for they were unbaptized, denied the gateway to the faith that you profess. ‘And if they lived before the Christians lived, they did not worship God aright. And among these I am one. ‘For such defects, and for no other fault, we are lost, and afflicted but in this, that without hope we live in longing.’ When I understood, great sadness seized my heart, for then I knew that beings of great worth were here suspended in this Limbo. … When I raised my eyes a little higher, I saw the master of those who know, sitting among his philosophic kindred. Eyes trained on him, all show him honor.[12] In front of all the rest and nearest him I saw Socrates and Plato. I saw Democritus, who ascribes the world to chance, Diogenes, Anaxagoras, and Thales, Empedocles, Heraclitus, and Zeno. I saw the skilled collector of the qualities of things — I mean Dioscorides — and I saw Orpheus, Cicero, Linus, and moral Seneca, Euclid the geometer, and Ptolemy, Hippocrates, Avicenna, Galen, and Averroes, who wrote the weighty glosses. I cannot give account of all of them, for the length of my theme so drives me on that often the telling comes short of the fact. Dante has not escaped the forces of political correctness; British newspapers have recently reported the call of Gherush92 for the Divine Comedy to be banned from classrooms or removed from school curricula, condemning it as racist, antisemitic, islamophobic, and homophobic (h/t to Prof. Eugene Volokh, who finds the idea “foolish”). Well, if Dante’s great epic ever does get banned, I suppose students can still encounter his vision viathe computer game reimagination (in which I do not know if Aristotle makes an appearance). התופתMuch has been written about the relationship of Immanuel to Dante, and of the former’s :to the latter’s Divine Comedy; as Immanuel’s Jewish Encyclopedia entry puts it והעדן It need hardly be said that Immanuel’s poem is patterned in idea as well as in execution on Dante’s “Divine Comedy.” It has even been asserted that he intended to set a monument to his friend Dante in the person of the highly praised Daniel for whom he found a magnificent throne prepared in paradise. This theory, however, is untenable, and there remains only that positing his imitation of Dante. Though the poem lacks the depth and sublimity, and the significant references to the religious, scientific, and political views of the time, that have made Dante’s work immortal, yet it is not without merit. Immanuel’s description, free from dogmatism, is true to human nature. Not the least of its merits is the humane point of view and the tolerance toward those of a different belief which one looks for in vain in Dante, who excludes all non-Christians as such from eternal felicity.

I have not studied either of the poems carefully, but as we have seen, at least with regard to the Greek intellectuals Immanuel shows rather less “tolerance toward those of a different belief” than is evident in his model. From Dante’s Encyclopedia Judaica entry (available at the Jewish Virtual Library): In the 19th century, scholars were convinced that Dante was on terms of friendship with the Hebrew poet *Immanuel of Rome. The latter and one of Dante’s friends, Bosone da Gubbio, marked Dante’s death by exchanging sonnets; and the death of Immanuel gave rise to another exchange of sonnets between Bosone and the poet Cino da Pistoia, in which Dante and Immanuel are mentioned together. Twentieth-century scholars, headed by M.D. (Umberto) Cassuto, showed that there is no basis for the alleged friendship between the two poets, but have proved Immanuel’s dependence upon Dante’s works. Important points of contact have also been discovered between Dante’s conceptions and the views of R. *Hillel b. Samuel of Verona; hypotheses have been formulated on the resemblance of the notion of Hebrew as the perfect or original language in the Commedia and in the works of the kabbalist Abraham *Abulafia, and in general on the common neoplatonic element in Dante’s theoretical and poetical works and in Kabbalah. Moreover, the Questio de aqua et terra probably written by Dante has a precedent in the discussion between Moses Ibn *Tibbon and Jacob ben Sheshet *Gerondi on the same subject a century before. Another parallel to Dante’s outlook on the world may be found in the writings and translations of Immanuel’s cousin, Judah b. Moses *Romano, who, within a few years of Dante’s death, made a *Judeo-Italian version of some philosophical passages from the Purgatorio and the Paradiso, adding his own Hebrew commentary. Italian Jews quickly realized the lyrical and ideological value of theCommedia and an early edition was issued by a Jewish printer at Naples in 1477. Like Petrarch, Dante was widely quoted by Italian rabbis of the Renaissance in their sermons, and even by one or two Jewish scholars in their learned commentaries. The first actual imitation was that of Immanuel of Rome. His Maḥberet ha-Tofet ve-ha-Eden is the 28th and final section of his Maḥberot (Brescia, 1491). Here Immanuel also describes a journey to the next world, in which he is guided by Daniel, a friend or teacher who, in the opinion of some scholars, is Dante himself.

[See further in the article for other echoes of the Divine Comedy in Jewish literature.] The article also robustly rejects the imputation of antisemitism to Dante: From biographical or autobiographical sources it cannot be proved for certain that Dante was in close touch with Jews or was personally acquainted with them. Jews are mentioned in his Divina Commedia mainly as a result of the theological problem posed by their historical role and survival. Such references are purely literary: the termjudei or giudei designates “the Jews,” a people whose religion differs from Christianity; while ebrei denotes “the Hebrews,” the people of the Bible. Dante knew no Hebrew and the isolated Hebrew terms which appear in theCommedia – Hallelujah, Hosanna, Sabaoth, El, and Jah – are derived from Christian liturgy or from the scholastic texts of the poet’s day. The Commedia contains no insulting or pejorative references to Jews. Although antisemites have given a disparaging interpretation to the couplet: “Be like men and not like foolish sheep, So that the Jew who dwells among you will not mock you” (Paradiso, 5:80–81), the Jews of Dante’s time considered these lines an expression of praise and esteem. In the course of his famous journey through Hell, Dante encounters no Jews among the heretics, usurers, and counterfeiters whose sinful ranks Jews during the Middle Ages were commonly alleged to swell.

Ha’aretz published an interview with Giorgio Battistoni, author of a book on Dante and Immanuel, who also denies Dante’s antisemitism: What brought you to this pairing of the relatively obscure Hebrew poet and Dante, who to this day is the national poet of Italy?

“The big mystery that concerns me in my book is the meaning of the silence about the connection between the Jewish poet and the Italian poet, and why the only homage is from Immanuel to Dante and there is no mention by Dante of his Jewish friend. And the question of whether there was a one-way influence by Dante on Immanuel and not, perhaps, the other way around. Maybe, I ask myself, it was Dante who owed much more to his Jewish source, and therefore blurred the connection that existed between them. “After all, it is impossible that they did not know one another because Dante frequented the court of the Veronese patron Can Grande della Scala. Alongside him there was an active Jewish patron, Hillel Ben Shemuel, the founder of a dynasty of Jewish patrons active in Verona from the middle of the 13th century to the end of the 14th century. Immanuel of Rome was his protege. Thanks to this family, Avraham Ibn Ezra came to Verona and wrote two books, and the family also invited Immanuel to leave Rome, his birthplace, and settle in Verona. Hillel Ben Shemuel was also the friend of kabbalist Avraham Abulafia. All this is circumstantial evidence. It feels like you want to convince yourself. Give us a reason to be convinced as well.

“Is Umberto Eco acceptable to you? So, Umberto Eco says that Dante knew about the Kabbala through Avraham Abulafia. Tell me: How do you think all the wisdom got from southern Spain to Verona if not with the Jews who migrated there, and first and foremost among them Avraham Ibn Ezra? And there was also Kalonymos Ben Kalonymos, who dealt in many translations from Arabic and from Hebrew into Latin. And there was also the Tiboni family who dealt in such books throughout Christian Europe, and the best proof of this is Thomas Aquinas, who when he wrote his Summa theologica mentioned that he had in his possession a Latin translation of the Rambam’s `Guide for the Perplexed.'” According to your description, it sounds like the books were easily accessible. Let’s not get carried away: The printing press had not yet been invented.

“True, access to books and to knowledge was the province of very few, but what was behind the flow of information was interest on the part of a somewhat greater public. At that time, people were beginning to think about secularism, and if not about true secularism then about a blurring of the boundaries between the monotheistic religions. Of course, such thoughts were considered subversive and encountered the sharp opposition of the various religious establishments, but they could no longer be silenced. “After the rediscovery of Greek philosophy in Europe, Judaism, biblical Judaism, and especially the prophetic books, looked like a kind of stage of metaphysics, and there was the beginning of the fascination with the figure of the biblical prophet, who in this context of the beginnings of secularism, embodied the figure of the new enlightened individual. “And this is exactly what Immanuel of Rome did in his `Mahberet Hatofet Veha’eden,’ when the Prophet Isaiah is elevated to the level of purity because of his learning, because of his understanding of the Scriptures.” The question of imitation is unavoidable. From this it is clear that Immanuel of Rome imitated Dante in everything, and the impression is that Immanuel simply adjusted him to the Hebrew language, and his achievement is in this adaptation of Dante into a Semitic tongue.

“I would suggest being very careful about using the word `imitation.’ And perhaps the opposite is the case? First of all, I believe that if Immanuel of Rome was imitating anyone, it was not Dante but Alharizi, the originator of the mahberet genre, which was in turn an imitation of the Arabic maqama genre. The lines of influence and imitation, if at all, are far more indirect. Dante did not invent the plot model itself for the `Divine Comedy.’ The general lines of the story of the poet descending into the world of the dead is already found in Sefer Hama’alot (“The Book of Degrees,” by Rabbi Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera, 13th century) or the Arabic Kitab al miraj, which preceded Dante, and was translated into Latin and French. And these things were even studied in the early stages of Dante research.”

So why is so little known about this, to the extent that you need to make an issue of it now?

“My aim is to correct an historical injustice, in fact. The tragedy is that in 1921, the 600th anniversary of Dante’s death, these ideas began to be current. However, with the rise of Fascism in Italy, all the curiosity about Dante’s foreign sources gave way to a narrow nationalism, in which Dante was perceived as the great national poet of Italy, the purely Catholic poet, and it was no longer possible to talk about Muslim influences, never mind Jewish. Ironically, the great Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto contributed to this when he stated definitively that Dante had not known Immanuel of Rome, and that it was all a matter of wishful thinking. In this way, the possibility was blocked of seeing a connection between Immanuel of Rome and Dante, despite all the paths, which cannot be denied, that lead to the conclusion that there had been a connection between them. “For many years, the notion prevailed that Dante hated Jews, because of various quotations from his works. I will prove that this is not true! For now, I am pleased that I have proved, in this book, how much Dante owed Judaism.” Some notes by Guy Shaked: On the inferiority of Immanuel’s last mahberet compared to the Dantescan model already the researchers commented profusely: Dan Pagis (1976) wrote: ‘The Mahberet of ‘Hell and Heaven” is probably the first among many creations in many languages, that followed Dante’s Divine Comedy. And Immanuel’s Mahberet is far less in quality than the Divine Comedy. Saul Tchernichowsky (1925) said that ‘in comparison [to the Divine Commedy] the ‘Hell and Heaven’ of Immanuel is poor and miserable. The twenty-eighth Mahberet is the weakest of all the Mahbarot, Its possible that in it he finished his literary creation and after sixty years suffered from old age’s weakness’. Joseph Chotzner (1905) said about the Mahberet of ‘Hell and Heaven’: ‘the condensed imitation [of the Divine Comedy] is of course, vastly inferior to the original’. Umberto Cassuto (1965) wrote: ‘Immanuel intended to enrich the Hebrew literature in a creation that might give the reader an image of Dante’s poetry’ although in a much smaller measure, in giving a thing that its measure of greatness is to the ‘Divine Comedy’ as is the measure of [Immanuel’s] shallow and light talent in comparison to the great spirit of Dante. A significant difference between the two works is the reference of their inclusion of their time’s persons in hell and heaven. While in Dante’s hell there are many figures from his time, in Immanuel there is not one! Dante’s hell includes 133 figures from his time while with Immanuel there is none (The name Immanuel in verse 648 is not mentioned as an inhabitant of hell, and Hiel Bet-Haeli is mentioned in line 80 with specific reference to the Biblical world). This picture changes drastically as we move to heaven, there Immanuel mentions twenty-one people from his time by name. Furthermore he speaks of five “hupot” (920-994) waiting for five of his friends who are still alive at his time for the time when they will die. It is worth the effort to pay attention to these twenty-one people from Immanuel’s time for they are five close family members of Immanuel including his mother two brothers mother and father in law. As to the five ‘friends’ of Immanuel (as they are referred to by Daniel in line 921) These are important people (sarim), that is to be understood three of them were most probably patrons of Immanuel as is said about three of them that their houses were open to guests (28:934, 949, 969). It could be presumed therefore that the two writers intentions were of opposite nature. While Dante sought to scold and punish all those of his time he thought deserved punishment, Immanuel wanted to offer reward. His piece is about making peace. And indeed it can explain his motives he wanted to make peace with his relatives and those he was grateful to (Patrons) in this work of art when he was ill and near death. This explains his inclusion for example of the five ‘hupot’ for the living those that he cherished, and it also can explain the relative inferiority of his Mahberet to all the other Mahbarot and to Dante’s Divine Comedy. Shaked proceeds to consider whether Immanuel is actually the Jew mentioned in theDivine Comedy, and he touches (indirectly) on the question of Dante’s antisemitism. See also this lengthy and detailed analysis of the poets and their works and this article on Immanuel, and see our previous discussion of the controversy over Immanuel’s work in the Jewish tradition.

R. Abba Mari of Lunel

The most startlingly positive appraisal of Aristotle I have ever seen comes from an even more unlikely source than an enthusiastic, if somewhat flaky, promoter of Kabbalah: R. Abba Mari (Don Astruc) of Lunel (Ha’Yarhi), who instigated and led the great crusade against the study of philosophy in early fourteenth century Provence and Spain, but who nevertheless is remarkably charitable toward Mr. Philosopher, the Greek himself, declaring that he truly meant well; that his failure to attain the ultimate truth is not his fault, and that the theological truths that he did attain, establish and promulgate render him worthy of respect: For this shall he be remembered favorably, that he brought proofs to the existence of G-d, may He be blessed, and to His unity and incorporeality, and [to the fact that] He experiences no actuation or change, and in this he followed in the footsteps of Abraham, peace upon him, who was the initial proselyte … אין תרעומות ולא נפלה הקפדה על ארסטו וחביריו, כי באמת לא נתכוונו לדבר סרה, ונתקיים בהם: ובכל מקום מוקטר ומוגש לשמי, ואמרו רז”ל (מנחות קי.) דקרו ליה א-להא דא-להא, מצורף לזה כי הם חכמי האומות ולא נעשה בהם האותות והמופתים, שהם שנוי סדרו של עולם, והנהגתם וסדורם על פי המערכת, כמו שאמר הכתוב: אשר חלק אותם ד’ לכל העמים, על כן אני אומר על ארסטו כי עינו הטעתו, בראותו עולם כמנהגו נוהג, גזר ואמר כי כל חלוף דבר מטבע נמנע, והביא ראיות על הקדמות, ואין לענשו על כך, כי אין זה מכלל ז’ מצות שנצטוו בני נח, אך על זה יזכר לטוב, כי הביא ראיות על מציאות הא-ל יתברך, ואחדותו והיותו בלתי גשם, ולא ישיגהו הפעלות ושינוי, ובזה הלך אחרי עקבות אברהם ע”ה שהיה תחלה לגרים, וכן נמצא כתוב בספר התפוח, כי הוא השתדל לבטל הדעות הנפסדות, כמו שעשה אברהם ראש לפלוסופים, אשר בטל עבודת השמש והירח בחרן ע”כ. ואם בענין החדוש והקדמות, לא ראה ולא ידע מופת, ולא נתאמת אצלו בראיות גמורות, ולא נלוה אליו עזר א-להי בזה, אין מן הפלא אם החזיק כוונתו בקבלותיו, והביא ראיות לעשות סעד לאמונת אבותיו, …[13]

Rav Elhanan Wasserman A very troubling portrayal of Aristotle appears ina famous and much cited essay :he notes Rambam’s famous appraisal of Aristotle ;מאמר על האמונה ,of Rav Elhanan Wasserman ואותו הכלל הוא, שכל מה שאמר אריסטו בכל המציאות אשר מאצל גלגל הירח עד מרכז הארץ, הוא נכון בלי פקפוק,ולא יטה ממנו אלא מי שלא הבינו, או מי שקדמו לו השקפות ורוצה להגן עליהן, או שמושכים אותו אותן ההשקפות להכחיש דבר גלוי. אבל כל מה שדיבר בו אריסטו מגלגל הירח ולמעלה, הרי כולו כעין השערה והערכה, פרט לדברים מעטים, כל שכן במה שאומר בדירוג השכלים, ומקצת ההשקפות הללו באלוהות שהוא סובר אותם ובהם זרויות גדולות,ודברים שהפסדם גלוי וברור לכל העמים, והפצת הבלתי נכון, ואין לו הוכחה על כך.[14] Although I know that many partial critics will ascribe my opinion concerning the theory of Aristotle to insufficient understanding, or to intentional opposition, I will not refrain from stating in short the results of my researches, however poor my capacities may be. I hold that the theory of Aristotle is undoubtedly correct as far as the things are concerned which exist between the sphere of the moon and the centre of the earth. Only an ignorant person rejects it, or a person with preconceived opinions of his own, which he desires to maintain and to defend, and which lead him to ignore clear facts. But what Aristotle says concerning things above the sphere of the moon is, with few exceptions, mere imagination and opinion; to a still greater extent this applies to his system of Intelligences, and to some of his metaphysical views: they include great improbabilities, [promote] ideas which all nations consider as evidently corrupt, and cause views to spread which cannot be proved.[15] And he uses it as a springboard to address a classic problem in moral philosophy: if even great philosophers such as Aristotle were unable to arrive at theological truth, how can G-d possibly demand this of every adult (i.e., adolescent) human being? [כיון] דהאמונה היא מכלל המצות, אשר כל ישראל חייבין בה תיכף משהגיעו לכלל גדלות, דהיינו תינוק בן י”ג שנה ותינוקת בת י”ב שנה, והנה ידוע, כי בענין האמונה נכשלו הפילוסופים היותר גדולים כמו אריסטו, אשר הרמב”ם העיד עליו, ששכלו הוא למטה מנבואה, ור”ל שלבד הנבואה ורוח הקודש לא היה חכם גדול כמותו בעולם, ומכל מקום לא עמדה לו חכמתו להשיג אמונה אמתית, ואם כן איך אפשר שתוה”ק תחייב את כל התינוקות שישיגו בדעתם הפעוטה יותר מאריסטו, וידוע שאין הקב”ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו.[16] Rav Elhanan’s classic answer is that the foundations of theology are indeed simple and self- evident, and it is only the extremely powerful biases against religious truth that prevent men from accepting them: אבל כאשר נתבונן בזה נמצא, כי האמונה שהקב”ה ברא את העולם היא מוכרחת לכל בן דעת, אם רק יצא מכלל שוטה, ואין צורך כלל לשום פילוסופיא להשיג את הידיעה הזאת, וז”ל חובת הלבבות בשער היחוד פרק ו’: ויש בני אדם שאמרו שהעולם נהיה במקרה, מבלי בורא חס ושלום, ותימא בעיני, איך תעלה בדעת מחשבה כזאת, ואילו אמר אדם בגלגל של מים, המתגלגל להשקות שדה, כי זה נתקן מבלי כוונת אומן, היינו חושבים את האומר זה לסכל ומשתגע וכו’. וידוע, כי הדברים אשר הם בלי כוונת מכוין, לא ימצאו בהם סימני חכמה. והלא תראה אם ישפך לאדם דיו פתאום על נייר חלק, אי אפשר שיצטייר ממנו כתב מסודר, ואילו בא לפנינו כתב מסודר ואחד אומר, כי נשפך הדיו על הנייר מעצמו ונעשתה צורת הכתב, היינו מכזיבים אותו, וכו’ עיי”ש,

ואיך אפשר לבן דעת לומר על הבריאה כולה שנעשית מאליה, אחרי שאנו רואין על כל פסיעה סימני חכמה עמוקה עד אין תכלית, וכמה חכמה נפלאה יש במבנה גו האדם ובסידור אבריו וכחותיו, כאשר יעידו על זה כל חכמי הרפואה והניתוח. ואיך אפשר לומר, על מכונה נפלאה כזאת, שנעשית מאיליה בלי כונת עושה. ואם יאמר אדם על מורה שעות שנעשה מעצמו, הלא למשוגע יחשב האומר כן. וכל דברים אלו נמצא במדרש: מעשה שבא מין אחד לרבי עקיבא, אמר לו המין לרבי עקיבא, מי ברא את העולם? אמר לו רבי עקיבא: הקב”ה. אמר המין: הראני דבר ברור. אמר לו רבי עקיבא: מי ארג את בגדך? אמר המין: אורג. אמר לו רבי עקיבא: הראני דבר ברור, וכלשון הזה אמר רבי עקיבא לתלמידיו, כשם שהטלית מעידה על האורג והדלת מעידה על הנגר והבית מעיד על הבנאי, כך העולם מעיד על הקב”ה שהראו, עכ”ל המדרש,

ואם נצייר, שיולד אדם בדעת שלימה, תיכף משעת הולדו, הנה לא נוכל להשיג את גודל השתוממותו בראותו פתאום את השמים וצבאם, הארץ וכל אשר עליה, וכאשר נבקש את האיש הזה, להשיב על שאלתנו, אם העולם אשר הוא רואה עתה בפעם הראשונה נעשה מאליו, בלי שום כונה או שנעשה על ידי בורא חכם, הנה כאשר יתבונן בדעתו ישיב בלי שום ספק, שהדבר נעשה בחכמה נפלאה ובסדר נעלה מאד. ומבואר בכתוב, השמים מספרים כבוד וגו’ מבשרי אחזה וגו’ ואם כן הדבר תמוה ונפלא מאד להיפוך, איך נואלו פילוסופים גדולים לומר שהעולם נעשה במקרה.[17] ופתרון החידה מצינו בתוה”ק, המגלה לנו כל סתום, והוא הכתוב: “לא תקח שוחד כי השוחד יעור עיני חכמים”, ושיעור שוחד על פי דין תורה הוא בשוה פרוטה, כמו גזל ורבית וכו’, והלא תעשה הזאת נאמרה על כל אדם וגם החכם מכל אדם וצדיק כמשה רבינו ע”ה, אם יצויר, שיקח שוחד פרוטה, יתעורו עיני שכלו ולא יוכל לדון דין צדק. ובהשקפה ראשונה הוא דבר תימה לומר על משה ואהרן שבשביל הנאה כל דהו, שהיה להם מבעל דין אחד, נשתנית דעתם ודנו דין שקר, אבל הרי התורה העידה לנו שכן הוא ועדות ד’ נאמנה. ועל כרחך צריך לומר, שהוא חוק הטבע בכחות נפש האדם, כי הרצון ישפיע על השכל. ומובן, שהכל לפי ערך הרצון ולפי ערך השכל, כי רצון קטן ישפיע על שכל גדול רק מעט, ועל שכל קטן ישפיע יותר, ורצון גדול ישפיע עוד יותר, אבל פטור בלא כלום אי אפשר, וגם הרצון היותר קטן יוכל להטות איזה נטיה, גם את השכל היותר גדול. ומצינו ברז”ל, פרק שני דייני גזירות, שעל ידי כל דהו שהגיעה להם מאדם הרגישו תיכף נטיה בשכלם לומר, מצי טעין הכי, וכו’ ואמרו על זה, תיפח רוחם של מקבלי שוחד, עיי”ש דברים נפלאים מאד. והשתא נחזי אנן, אם רז”ל שהיו כמלאכים ברוחב דעתם ובמידותיהם הקדושות, פעלה עליהם קבלת הנאה כל שהוא להטות שכלם, כל שכן אנשים המשוקעים בתאות עולם הזה, אשר היצר הרע משחד אותם ואומר להם, הרי לפניך עולם של הפקר ועשה מה שלבך חפץ, עד כמה יש כח בנגיעה הגסה הזאת לעור עיני שכלם, כי בדבר שהאדם משוחד, לא יוכל להכיר את האמת אם היא נגד רצונותיו והוא כמו שיכור לדבר זה, ואף החכם היותר גדול לא תעמוד לו חכמתו, בשעה שהוא שיכור. ומעתה אין תימה מהפילוסופים שכפרו בחידוש העולם, כי כפי גודל שכלם עוד גדלו יותר ויותר תאוותיהם להנאת עולם הזה, ושוחד כזה יש בכחו להטות דעת האדם, לומר, כי שתי פעמים שנים אינן ארבע, אלא חמש. ואין כח בשכל האדם להכיר את האמת, בלתי אם אינו משוחד בדבר שהוא דן עליו, אבל אם הכרת האמת היא נגד רצונותיו של אדם, אין כח להשכל, גם היותר גדול, להאיר את עיני האדם. היוצא מזה, כי יסודי האמונה מצד עצמם הם פשוטים ומוכרחים לכל אדם שאיננו בכלל שוטה, אשר אי אפשר להסתפק באמיתתם, אמנם רק בתנאי, שלא יהא אדם משוחד, היינו שיהא חפשי מתאות עולם הזה ומרצונותיו. ואם כן סיבת המינות והכפירה אין מקורה בקילקול השכל מצד עצמו, כי אם מפני רצונו לתאוותיו, המטה ומעור את שכלו, …[18]

Much of the discussion of this essay focuses on Rav Elhanan’s twin theses that:

The Argument From Design is so utterly obvious and compelling that there is no explanation for serious atheism without the idea that Personal biases can be so powerful that they utterly blind their holders to the most basic and self-evident truths

But I have long been greatly disturbed by a different, albeit perhaps minor, point: the profound mischaracterization of Aristotelian theology as the equivalent of modern scientific materialistic atheism, holding that the universe is purely random, without any Designer behind it. Whatever Aristotle’s own views may actually have been, this is certainly not how he was understood by the Rishonim (both those favorable to the study of his philosophy as well as those opposed), who are surely the sole basis of Rav Elhanan’s knowledge of him. And as we have seen, Rav Abba Mari of Lunel attributes Aristotle’s failure to attain ultimate theological truth solely to his not having experienced the Divine miracles, or received the religious tradition, that we Jews have, and this is perfectly understandable in light of the standard view (explicitly espoused by him) of Aristotle as accepting the existence of G-d as Prime Mover, although not as One who intervenes at will in creating and maintaining His world.

“Rabbitstotle” and the Non- Triangular Mathematician No discussion of Jewish attitudes toward Aristotle can be complete (not that this essay aspires to completeness in any event) without mention of the infamous, scurrilous “Rabbitstotle” legend of the great philosopher being caught devouring a live rabbit, and responding to his surprised observer that “I am (or: ‘this is’) not Aristotle”; but although this story is quite widespread in contemporary frum circles, I have yet to locate any source for it whatsoever, even an unreliable one, and I once (reasonably discreetly) walked out of a lecture by a very prominent speaker in frustration at his confident assertion of this libel (or one of its variants) as fact. This ridiculous anecdote has even been attributed (comment #46 to this article) to, of all people, Rambam (!): Haredi leaders rarely make political statements. Even R. Shach’s comment about “rabbit eaters” was a reference to a passage in Rambam where he describes Aristotle, who was the epitome of good sense, telling his students “I am not Aristotle” as he gulps down a live rabbit. It was meant to describe the erstwhile idealists in the Left. Unless you knew the reference, of course, you would imagine it was “strange”.

I am no expert on Rav Shach, but I suspect that the obviously unreliable commenter may be misremembering / misquoting a controversial comment of Rav Shach derisively referring to secular kibbutzniks as “rabbit breeders“. A variant of the story has the Philosopher caught committing a disgusting and immoral sexual perversion: It would also be useful to bring up the famous story of Aristotle, once we mention Athens, and his students finding him engaged in highly illegal activities with a horse. They questioned him regarding his behaviour, specifically because he had only earlier that day warned them against it himself. His reply? “This is not Aristotle”, meaning that their was an intellectual soul, an Aristotle, and there was an animal soul, which wasn’t Aristotle. And never the twain shall meet. Judaism teaches that this is the wrong way to look at things. We are humans, yes, complete with human characteristics and desires, but we also have something higher. All people have an intellect, a brain, an organ that can raise a person from his purely animal past and place him in a world that is governed by reason, not by passion. Jews have it even better, because we have a G-dly soul, quite literally a part of the living G-d. And this soul allows us to rise above the intellectual to allow G-d to penetrate our conscious and replace all that is finite with the infinite. Aristotle didn’t accept that he could master himself. He refused to believe that the animal is man is not only shameful for the brain but also for the animal. For that is the difference between hiskafia and ishapcha. The former teaches us to repel all that is evil, but this is not enough. The latter teaches us to change that darkness into light. To make the animal soul itself recognize that there is no greater thing in the world than G-d. Allowing the animal free reign in its domain while the brain rules in its, as Aristotle wanted, is not a proper course of action. We were not brought into this world to satisfy our appetites, but rather to fulfill G-d’s will.

[See also the comments to the post.] Here it is claimed that Aristotle’s “life of immorality” is “well known”; as is often the case, the assertion that something is “well known” is actually a euphemism for the introduction of a baseless rumor: As such, man can be the most dangerous in all of Creation. And he needs to be constrained with heavy chains, not to act upon his beastly instincts. The only “chain” that can securely control man is fear of G’d. This serves as a constant reminder that at some point one has to give an account for every act, and that for every deed there will be a reward or punishment. Fear of G’d is what enables man to control his lust and cravings, as well as his arrogance and anger. As long as the going is smooth, every one will behave correctly. But when a person’s base instincts are stimulated, neither civilization nor culture will control him. It is well known that Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, lived a life of immorality. And like him many great minds faired no better than their simple fellow beings in their private lives.

A related story, also common in frum circles, is told about the celebrated and colorful brilliant British mathematician and philosopherBertrand Russell; here’s Sara Yocheved Rigler’s version (and see also here): The story is told of Russell that while he was a Professor of Ethics at Harvard he was carrying on an adulterous affair. Since it was decades before the sexual revolution, Harvard’s Board of Governors called Russell in and censured him. Russell maintained that his private affairs had nothing to do with the performance of his professional duties.

“But you are a Professor of Ethics!” one of the Board members remonstrated.

“I was a Professor of Geometry at Cambridge,” Russell rejoined, “but the Board of Governors never asked me why I was not a triangle.”

A basic fallacy underlies Russell’s position. If the quality of integrity is absent in the person, how can it be present in his or her ideas?

The claim that one’s ideas are not contaminated by one’s moral failures, especially for those who seek to remold society by their ideas, is hazardous. Ideas — whether they are religious, sociological, political, or scientific — must come from a source who is, minimally, committed to truth more than the propagation of his own ideology. If a man lies to his wife, how can you trust his philosophical contentions? If a woman fudges on her income tax, how can you be sure that she is not fudging on the results of her sociological experiments, or picking and choosing the results which corroborate her theories?

[Rigler proceeds to hurl charges of gross and egregious moral and intellectual hypocrisy at Karl Marx and Lillian Hellman.] Jeffrey Woolf repeats the anecdote, but he at least acknowledges its “apocryphal” character. One would think that anyone making up a story about a relatively recent historical figure would at least take the trouble to place him in a plausible setting; although Russell did teach at several American universities, Harvard was not one of them … A much more profound error in this story is its utter misrepresentation of Russell’s morality; while the man was certainly promiscuous – he did engage in numerous affairs, many of them adulterous – upon being confronted with his sexual indulgences, he would certainly not have conceded hypocrisy; on the contrary, he would have unabashedly on sexuality in justification. Of course, one can still argue, à la שיטה expounded his Rav Elhanan, that his true motivation, conscious or subconscious, for this attitude was really his id, but the shameless retort attributed to him by the story certainly misses the point. [1] ספר יצירה עם מפרשים (ירושלים תשכ”ה) פ”ג מ”ה עמוד מה. – קשר

[2] Dukes himself was apparently uncertain whether the “Moshe Boniak Botarel” of this but Prof. Simha Assaf is convinced ,ספר יצירה letter is indeed the author of the commentary to that it is – see note 5 in the article referenced in our next note, and p. 295 in Prof. Ya’akov Zussman’s article cited below.

[3] מתוך שמחה אסף, “”תשובות גאונים” מתוך גנזיו של ר’ משה בוטריל”, בתוך ספר היובל לד”ר בנימין מנשה לוין (ירושלים ת”ש) עמודים ב-ג – קשר. אני מודה לחבירי אליעזר ברודט שהראה לי מקום ספר זה באתרHebrewBooks.

[4] שם עמודים א-ב

[5] בית המדרש (חדר ששי) (ווינא תרל”ח) עמודים 141-42 – קשר

[6] יעקב זוסמן, “שני קונטרסים בהלכה מאת ר’ משה בוטריל”, בתוך קבץ על יד, סדרה חדשה ספר ו’ (טז), עמוד 278. אני מודה לחברי Andy שהביא את מאמר זה לתשומת לבי, והשאיל לי את הספר. [7] שם, עמודים 296-97. [8] שם עמוד 297. [9] עמנואל הרומי, מחברות עמנואל, מחברת עשרים ושמונה (התופת והעדן) – קשר, (לבוב תרל) עמודים רכ-רכא – קשר. [10] “The concept of Limbo–a region on the edge of hell (limbus means “hem” or “border”) for those who are not saved even though they did not sin–exists in Christian theology by Dante’s time, but the poet’s version of this region is more generous than most. Dante’s Limbo–technically the first circle of hell–includes virtuous non-Christian adults in addition to unbaptized infants. We thus find here many of the great heroes, thinkers, and creative minds of ancient Greece and Rome as well as such medieval non-Christians as Saladin, Sultan of Egypt in the late twelfth century, and the great Islamic philosophers Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroës (Ibn Rushd). For Dante, Limbo was also the home of major figures from the Hebrew Bible, who–according to Christian theology–were “liberated” by Jesus following his crucifixion (see Harrowing of Hell).” – link.

[11] Divine Comedy, Inferno, Canto IV lines 131-47 – link.

[12] “”The master of those who know” (Inf. 4.131). So respected and well known was Aristotle in the Middle Ages that this phrase is enough to identify him as the one upon whom other prominent philosophers in Limbo– including Socrates and Plato–look with honor. Dante elsewhere follows medieval tradition by referring to Aristotle simply as “the Philosopher,” with no need of additional information. Aristotle’s authority in the Middle Ages owes to the fact that almost all his works were translated into Latin (from their original Greek and / or from Arabic) in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. By contrast, only one work by Plato–the Timaeus–was available in Latin translation (partial at that) in Dante’s day. A student of Plato’s, tutor to Alexander the Great, and founder of his own philosophical school, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) wrote highly influential works on an astonishing range of subjects, including the physical universe, biology, politics, rhetoric, logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and ethics. Next to the Bible, he was the most important authority for two of Dante’s favorite Christian thinkers, Albert the Great and his student Thomas Aquinas, both of whom strove to validate the role of reason and to sharpen its relationship to faith. The influence of Aristotelian thought on Dante is perhaps most apparent in the content of a philosophical work (Convivio), the argumentation of a political treatise (De Monarchia), and the moral structure of hell (Inferno).” – link.

[13] מנחת קנאות (פרסבורג תקצ”ח) הקדמה פרק י”ד – קשר.

[14] מורה נבוכים (מהדורת קאפח)חלק ב’ פרק כ”ב – קשר. ויש לציין עוד את דברי הרמב”ם על ארסטו באגרתו אל ר’ שמואל אבן תיבון: “ודברי אפלטון רבו של ארס”טו בספריו וחבוריו הם עמוקות ומשלים. והם עוד מה שיספיק לו לאדם משכיל זולתם. לפי שספרי ארס”טו תלמידו הם שיספיקו על כל מה שחבר לפניהם. ודעתו ר”ל דעת ארס”טו היא תכלית דעת האדם, מלבד מי שנשפע עליהם השפע הא-להי עד שישיגו אל מעלת הנבואה אשר אין מעלה למעלה ממנה.” – קשר.

[15] Ibid, Friedlander’s translation: – link.

[16] ר’ אלחנן בונם וסרמן, קובץ מאמרים (ירושלים תשכ”ג), מאמר על אמונה, אות ג’ עמודים יא-יב.

[17] שם אות ה’ עמודים יב-יג.

[18] שם אותיות ו’-ז’, עמודים יג-יד.

New Book Announcement

New Book Announcement By Eliezer Brodt הציץ ונפגע, אנטומיה של מחלוקת חסידית, דוד אסף, ידיעות ספרים .ואוניברסיטת חיפה, 541 עמודים

Just released, from University of HaIfa and Yedioth Achronoth, the much-anticipated work by ,(הציץ ונפגע) Hazitz Unifgah Professor David Assaf on the Sanz Sadigura controversy (see here about this book, on Prof. Assaf’s extremely interesting blog). This controversy began in 1869 and continued for a while afterward. This is the first work to document at great length (541 pp.) all the details of this controversy based on many rare documents and the like. It continues in the path of Assaf’s previous works and will be sure to cause a great stir and much interest, as did his prior books.

A complete bibliography of the sources that were used for writing this book was printed in the recent volume of Mechkarei Yerushalayim 23 (2011) pp. 407-481. This was not included in this new work. If you are interested in a table of contents of this work email me at eliezerbrodt @ gmail . com.