Young Rabbis and All About Olives

Young Rabbis and All About Olives Marc B. Shapiro I am currently working on a book focused on the thought of R. Kook, in particular his newly released publications. A book recently appeared titled Siah ha-Re’iyah, by R. David Gavrieli and R. Menahem Weitzman. It discusses a number of important letters of R. Kook. In addition to the analysis of the letters, each of the letters is printed with explanatory words that make them easier to understand. We are also given biographical details about the recipients of R. Kook’s letters. Here is the title page. In reading the book, I once again found myself asking the question, how can intelligent people sometimes say nonsensical things? On p. 252 the book states that R. Menahem Mendel Cohen studied in yeshivot in Tiberias and Safed, and was appointed as chief rabbi of the Ashkenazic community of Cairo in 1896 when he was only ten years old! How is it possible for anyone to write such a sentence, that a ten-year-old was appointed as a communal rabbi? Let me explain what happened here, but first, I must note that the name of the man we are referring to is not R. Menahem Mendel Cohen, but R. Aaron Mendel Cohen. Here is his picture, which comes from a very nice Hebrew Wikipedia article on him. As for R. Cohen being appointed rabbi at age ten, whoever prepared the biographical introduction must have had a source which mistakenly stated that R. Cohen was born in 1886. Since this source also said that he became rabbi in Cairo in 1896, this means that he was ten years old was he was appointed rabbi. Yet we can only wonder how the authors did not see the obvious impossibility of a ten-year-old being appointed rabbi of Cairo, which should have led them to investigate a little further. Simply by googling R. Cohen’s name in Hebrew, the Wikipedia article will come up, and it tells us that R. Cohen was born not in 1886 but in 1866. Thus, instead of a ten-year- old rabbi he is now thirty years old. With regard to young rabbis, let me repeat, with some slight edits, something I wrote in an earlier post here. In terms of young achievers in the Lithuanian Torah world, I wonder how many have ever heard of R. Meir Shafit. He lived in the nineteenth century and wrote Sefer Nir, a commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud, when not many were studying it. Here is the title page of one of the volumes, where it tells us that he became rav of a community at the age of fifteen. The Hazon Ish once remarked that the young Rabbi Shafit would mischievously throw pillows at his gabbaim![1] Regarding R. Jacob Schorr [mentioned earlier in the original post] being a childhood genius, this letter from him to R. Shlomo Kluger appeared in Moriah, Av 5767.

As you can see, the letter was written in 1860 (although I We .(תר”ך can’t make out what the handwriting says after are informed, correctly, that R. Schorr was born in 1853, which would mean that he was seven years old when he wrote the letter. This, I believe, would make him the greatest child genius in Jewish history, as I don’t think the Vilna Gaon could even write like this at age seven. Furthermore, if you read the letter you see that two years prior to this R. Schorr had also written to R. Kluger. Are there any other examples of a five-year-old writing Torah letters to one of the gedolei ha-dor? From the letter we also see that the seven-year-old Schorr was also the rav of the town of Mariampol! (The Mariampol in Galicia, not Lithuania.) I would have thought that this merited some mention by the person publishing this letter. After all, R. Schorr would be the only seven-year-old communal rav in history, and this letter would be the only evidence that he ever served as rav in this town. Unfortunately, the man who published this document and the editor of the journal are entirely oblivious to what, on the face of things, must be one of the most fascinating letters in all of Jewish history. Yet all that I have written assumes that the letter was actually written by R. Schorr. Once again, we must thank R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer for setting the record straight. In his recently published Shuvi ha-Shulamit (Jerusalem, 2009), vol. 7, p. 101, he calls attention to the error and points out, citing Wunder, Meorei Galicia, that the rav of Mariampol, Galicia was another man entirely, who was also named Jacob Schorr. This is what I wrote in the prior post. Let me now add some additional information about R. Shafit, the fifteen-year-old communal rav. The first thing I want to point out relates to the city in which R. Shafit became rav at age fifteen. If you This .מיצד look at the title page you can see that its name is is actually an alternate way of spelling the city which is Anyone who knows their Lithuanian .מייצ’ט better known as rabbinic history will recognize this city as Meitchet (Molchad in English), made famous by the great R. Solomon Polachek, known as the Meitcheter Iluy. (R. Polachek was not actually born in Meitchet, but in a small town nearby.) There is so much to say about R. Polachek, but it will have to wait for a future post. Returning to R. Shafit, although he is hardly a household name, in his day he was actually quite a well-known rabbi. He contributed to R. Israel Salanter’s journal Tevunah,[2] and those who study the Jerusalem Talmud know that his commentary is a very important work.[3] R. Adin Steinsaltz, who is from R. Shafit’s family, even took time away from his own work on the Talmud to publish from manuscript a commentary of R. Shafit on the Jerusalem Talmud. Here is the volume that appeared in 1979.

In the preface, R. Steinsaltz writes: כל החכמים הלומדים בירושלמי בכל השיטות, למן חכמי בית המדרש נוסח ליטא העתיקה עד לאנשי המדע המובהקים, כולם כאחד הודו שפירוש “הניר” הוא מחשובי הפירושים שנכתבו אי פעם על התלמוד הירושלמי I do not need go into more detail on R. Shafit since in 2014 Hillel Rotenberg published an entire book on him.[4] And while it is true that, as mentioned already, R. Shafit is not a household name, there are today people who celebrate his hillula. See here. In case you are wondering what a Lithuanian rabbi is doing with ahillula , R. Shafit was actually a Slonimer Hasid. In response to my earlier comments about the young R. Shafit, Seforim Blog contributor R. Ovadiah Hoffman sent me another example of a young rabbi: Avigdor Aptowitzer. Aptowitzer, who was one of the twentieth-century’s leading academic scholars of rabbinic literature, is best known as the editor of R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi’s halakhic work Ra’avyah, concerning which he published another important volume as an introduction to the Ra’avyah, and a book called Hosafot ve-Tikunim le-Sefer Ra’avyah (Jerusalem, 1936). According to Abraham Meir Habermann, when Aptowitzer was around seven years old his father, the rabbi of Tarnopol, became ill. Young Avigdor took the place of his father as rabbi. During the week he taught students and on Shabbat people carried him to the synagogue so that he could deliver the derashah.[5] As far as I know, this makes Aptowitzer the youngest person ever to serve as a communal rabbi, even though he was never officially appointed to the position. It is also reported that R. Shimon Sofer, the son of R. Abraham Samuel Sofer (the Ketav Sofer), was so learned as a from R. Judah Aszod when חבר child that he received the title he was only nine years old.[6] In speaking about young rabbis, it is also important to mention a passage in R. David Abudarham’s[7] commentary on the Abudarham .אמר רבי אלעזר הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה .Haggadah, s.v cites the Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 4:1, that R. Elazar ben Azariah was appointed nasi of the Sanhedrin at age 13. Our version of the Jerusalem Talmud has “age 16”, but the version cited by Abudarham appears in other early sources.[8] Regarding age 16, R. Solomon Ibn Gabirol wrote his azharot for Shavuot when he was that old. At the beginning of the azharot he wrote (with great self-confidence, I might add):[9]

והנני בשש עשרה שנותי ובי שכל כמו בן השמונים Avodah Zarah 56b tells about a child who learned Tractate Avodah Zarah when he was six years old. The Talmud describes how he was asked halakhic questions on the tractate, and his replies apparently signify that he was deciding halakhic matters at the age of six. He was asked, ‘May [an Israelite] tread grapes together with a heathen in a press?’ He replied, ‘It is lawful to tread grapes together with a heathen in a press.’ [To the objection] ‘But he renders it yein nesekh [10] by [the touch of] his hands!’ [he answered], ‘We tie his hands up.’ [To the further objection] ‘But he renders it yein nesekh by [the touch of] his feet!’ [he answered], ‘Wine touched by the feet is not called nesekh.’ Although not an example of a child rabbi, I think it is worthwhile to mention R. Jacob Berab’s statement that when he was only eighteen years old, and did not yet have a beard, he was the rabbi and halakhic authority for a community of 5000 families in Fez.[11] Returning to Aptowitzer, R. Meir Mazuz directs a comment at him in a recent issue of his weeklyBayit Ne’eman.[12] In discussing the proper size of a kezayit, R. Mazuz notes that the Ashkenazic rishonim did not have any personal knowledge of olives, and thus did not know how big they were.[13] He cites R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi, theRa’avyah , who writes as follows:[14] וכל היכא שצריך כזית צריך שיהיה מאכל בהרווחה, לפי שאין אנו בקיאין בשיעור זית כדי, שלא תהיה ברכה לבטלה You cannot get any clearer than this that R. Eliezer, who lived throughout Germany, had no idea how big an olive לפי שאין אנו was.[15] Yet in Aptowitzer’s note to the words :he writes ,בקיאין בשיעור זית כלו’ אלא ע”י מדידה וחשבון, וכאן שבברכה אחרונה אנו עסוקין וכבר אכל ואי אפשר לחשוב ולמדוד, לכן יזהר שיאכל מתחילה שיעור גדול שאין להסתפק בו שהוא כזית He explains the Ra’avyah to be saying that we do not know how large our portion of food is without measuring it. Since we are dealing with the final blessing and the food is already eaten and thus can no longer be measured, people should eat enough so that there is no doubt that they ate an olive’s worth and thus no problem with a berakhah le-vatalah. It is hard to understand how Aptowitzer could have written something so obviously incorrect, as there is no doubt as to the passage’s meaning. R. Mazuz writes: איזה “חכם”, שנכון שאחרי שכבר אכל את הזית לא יכול למדוד, אבל לפני שאכל הוא רואה את הגודל אז למה צריך לאכול בהרווחה?! אלא לא היו מכירים את הזיתים Here is something else relevant to Aptowitzer. Nahmanides, Commentary to Genesis 31:35, writes (Chavel translation): The correct interpretation appears to me to be that in ancient days menstruants kept very isolated for they were ever referred to as niddoth on account of their isolation since they did not approach people and did not speak to them. For the ancients in their wisdom knew that their breath is harmful, their gaze is detrimental and makes a bad impression, as the philosophers have explained. I will yet mention their experiences in this matter. And the menstruants dwelled isolated in tents where no one entered, just as our Rabbis have mentioned in the Beraitha of Tractate Niddah: “A learned man is forbidden to greet a menstruant. Rabbi Nechemyah says, ‘even the utterance of her mouth is unclean.’ Said Rabbi Yochanan: ‘One is forbidden to walk after a menstruant and tread upon her footsteps, which are as unclean as a corpse; so is the dust upon which the menstruant stepped unclean, and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from her work.’” Baraita de-Masekhet Niddah is a strange work, with all sorts of extreme statements not found in mainstream rabbinic literature. This is not the place to review in any detail the various scholarly views about the text’s origin.[16] Suffice it to say that Saul Lieberman thought that the author was a sectarian, but not a Karaite.[17] Aptowitzer, however, took issue with Lieberman and argued that Baraita de-Masekhet Niddah is a Karaite forgery designed to insert Karaite views into the Rabbanite community, and also to make the Sages look like fools. As an example of the latter, Aptowitzer quoted the “halakhah” recorded in Baraita de-Masekhet Niddah that a kohen whose family member – by which it means one he lives with – is a niddah cannot offer a sacrifice or perform birkat kohanim.[18] Aptowitzer concluded that it is “very unfortunate” that some rishonim were misled by this forgery, thinking it an authentic work.[19] Aptowitzer’s work, Mehkarim be-Sifrut ha-Geonim, in which he expressed this judgment, was published by Mossad ha-Rav Kook. R. Hayyim Dov Chavel also published his commentary on Nahmanides with Mossad ha-Rav Kook, and on the just-mentioned passage of Nahmanides to Genesis 31:35, R. Chavel quotes Aptowitzer’s view. It is easy to see why, from a traditional perspective, what Aptowitzer said is problematic. After all, he posits that Nahmanides, one of the greatest of the medieval sages, was taken in by a heretic’s forgery. His apology, as it were, that Nahmanides and other medieval sages were not critical scholars, and thus it is not a cause for wonder that they were fooled in this matter, is not the sort of thing that will be seen as respectful in traditional circles. It is one thing to write about more recent sages being fooled by Besamim Rosh and the Yerushalmi on Kodashim, but when dealing with a figure like Nahmanides such a position is bound to be more controversial. This is exactly what happened, and R. Chavel must have been subjected to criticism for citing Aptowitzer in this matter. In the second edition of his commentary, vol. 1, p. 554, R. Chavel backtracks from what he wrote. Had he been able to reset the type and delete the entire note from the text of the commentary I am sure he would have done so. However, he had to settle for a comment in the hashmatot u-miluim, which most people never bother to look at. He writes as follows: על דעת בקורתית זו יש להוסיף: אף כי חכם גדול היה ר’ אביגדור אפטוביצר, ונאמן רוח לתורה ולחכמה, נתפס כאן לסברה בעלמא, שלא שזפה עינו החדה כי הברייתא הזאת (ברייתא דמסכת נידה) היא עדות מוכחת עד כמה גידרו קדמונינו עצמם להתרחק מטומאת הנדה. כטומאת הנדה היתה דרכם לפני (יחזקאל לו, יח). ואף שלא היו הדורות נוהגים למעשה בכל החומרות הנזכרות בברייתא זו, הלא כבר כתב ה”חתם סופר” [או”ח סי’ כג] שאולי נשתנו הטבעים והמקומות, או כיון שדשו בה רבים שומר פתאים ה As readers can see, R. Chavel’s point is completely dogmatic without any scholarly argument. Returning to Nahmanides’ comment to Genesis 31:35, he tells us that he will have more to say on this matter. This is found in his commentary to Leviticus 18:19, where he writes that the blood of menstruation “is deadly poisonous, capable of causing the death of any creature that drinks or eats it.” He further states: If a menstruant woman at the beginning of her issue were to concentrate her gaze for some time upon a polished iron mirror, there would appear in the mirror red spots resembling drops of blood, for the bad part therein [i.e., in the issue] that is by its nature harmful, causes a certain odium, and the unhealthy condition of the air attaches to the mirror, just as a viper kills with its gaze. I find it noteworthy that such a great figure as Nahmanides, who was also a doctor, was able to be taken in by these fairy tales. He certainly had never seen any red spots showing up on a mirror so why did he believe such a story without attempting to confirm its accuracy himself? I realize that in medieval times people were much more credulous, and repeated all sorts of far-fetched things that they heard.[20] Nahmanides himself repeats that people in Germany would make use of demons, and he had no reason to doubt this report.[21] שמעתי בבירור שמנהג אלמניי”ו לעסוק בדברי השדים ומשביעים אותם, ומשלחים אותם ומשתמשים בהם בכמה ענינים He also believed a report that travelers to the east had discovered the Garden of Eden, but were then killed by the flaming sword that guards the Garden.[22] ובספרי הרפואות היונים הקדמונים, וכן בספר אסף היהודי סיפרו כי אספלקינוס חכם מקדוני וארבעים איש מן החרטומים מלומדי הספרים הלכו הלוך בארץ ועברו מעבר להודו קדמת עדן למצוא קצת עלי הרפואות ועץ החיים למען תגדל תפארתם על כל חכמי הארץ, ובבואם אל המקום ההוא ויברק עליהם להט החרב המתהפכת, ויתלהטו כלם בשביבי הברק, ולא נמלט מהם איש However, when dealing with red spots on a mirror this was something that Nahmanides could have easily confirmed, and yet instead he relied on what he heard, or perhaps read. In seeking to understand how Nahmanides could have been misled in this matter, it helps to be reminded of Bertrand Russell’s famous comment made with reference to Aristotle’s assertion that men have more teeth than women. To modern educated people, it seems obvious that matters of fact are to be ascertained by observation, not by consulting ancient authorities. But this is an entirely modern conception, which hardly existed before the seventeenth century. Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.[23] Returning to the matter of olives, it is noteworthy that the halakhic authorities, including those in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, who argued that olives have shrunk since the days of the Sages did not actually seek to prove this with historical evidence. Had they done so they would have found that the size of olives has not changed. However, concerning another measurement we find that the Steipler was indeed interested in what the historical record revealed. R. Avrohom Marmorstein and Jacob Djmal both called my attention to a letter of the Steipler that was recently up for auction. Here is the item from Kedem’s January 2018 auction catalog (catalog no. 59), pp. 269-270 (item no. 298).

This letter already appeared in Aleh Yonah (Jerusalem-Bnei Brak, 1989), p. 134. We see that in trying to determine the size of a cubit, the Steipler actually wrote to the archaeology department at “the university” (i.e., Hebrew University). This sort of effort is exactly what is required when trying to investigate a matter such as this. Yet look what happened when this letter was published in the Steipler’s Karyana de-Igarta, vol. 2, no. 402. The section showing that the Steipler reached out to the academic world was simply deleted, with no indication given that anything has been removed from the letter.

Finally, it is worth mentioning the Hazon Ish’s position that although the various measurements go back to Sinai, the actual size of the measurements required in order to fulfill an obligation was established by the Sages. In other words, while the measurement of a kezayit is mi-deoraita, how big this olive is – as there are different size olives – was given to the Sages to be determined.[24] וכשנאמרו שיעורין בסיני נאמרו על האומד ומה שנראה לו לאדם זהו שיעורו, ואמנם הדבר מסור לחכמים לקבוע גדרי השיעור לכל ישראל וכמו שאמרו חכמים כזית שנאמרו זה אגורי כשעורה זו מדברית כעדשה זו מצרית לא שנאמרה למשה כך אלא נאמרה סתם והיא הבינונית אלא חכמים עיינו בדבר וקבעו לכל ישראל שכזית אגורי ושעורה מדברית ועדשה מצרית הם הבינונים, וכשם שמסור לדעתו של רואה להכריע על הבינוני של הפרי בין חביריו הגדולים והקטנים כן מסור לחכמים לקבוע את המדידה שיש להגיד עליה שפירותיה הם הבינונים בהגלילים והארצות השונות Regarding the kezayit measurement, there is one other point worth mentioning. Everyone knows that one is required to eat a kezayit of maror at the Seder. Nevertheless, the practice of the Ropshitz hasidim used to be precisely the opposite, as they were careful not to eat a kezayit of maror. This strange practice goes back to the founder of the Ropshitz dynasty, R. Naphtali Zvi Horowitz (1760-1827). (I don’t know if the practice continues today.) Not only is the lack of a kezayit problematic, but there is the other issue regarding whether one can even say a blessing on the maror with less than a kezayit. R. Aryeh Zvi Frommer deals with Ropshitz practice, and also mentions that he heard that R. Shalom of Belz and R. Ezekiel of Shinova also told people to eat less than a kezayit of maror and to make the blessing on it.[25] R. Frommer attempts to justify this practice halakhically, and he states explicitly that he is doing so in order that the actions of these hasidic masters not be in contradiction to the Mishnah, Pesahim 2:6, the meaning of which appears to be that a kezayit is the minimum amount required for maror.[26] He also notes that he wants to justify the practice of “most of Israel” who use horseradish for maror and also do not eat a kezayit. His justification is only of eating less than a kezayit of horseradish, so it does not seem that this will be of any help with regard to the view of the Ropshitzer, as his avoidance of a kezayit of maror apparently applied to all types of maror, even lettuce. Many people probably remember their grandparents telling them that in Europe they used horseradish formaror , but that unlike today there was no concept of being careful to eat a kezayit. If you had any doubts about what your grandparents reported, R. Frommer tells us the exact same thing. Are we to say that most Jews in Europe did not fulfill the mitzvah of maror? This is a conclusion that no rabbi wants to reach, and that is why R. Frommer is motivated to find some justification for the practice. כנלע”ד ליישב דברי הצדיקים ז”ל שלא יסתרו למשנה מפורשת הנ”ל וליישב מנהג רוב ישראל שאוכלין למרור חריין פחות מכזית ומברכין עליו על אכילת מרור R. Frommer was obviously concerned that what he wrote would be regarded as too radical. Thus, on the very last page of the book, where one finds the corrections, he stressed that his words were only a limud zekhut because most people do not eat a kezayit, but le-khathilah one cannot rule this way. כ”ז כתבתי רק דרך למוד זכות מחמת שרוב ההמון ונשים נוהגין כן אבל לכתחלה אין להורות כן וכ”מ באבני נזר סי’ שפ”ג R. Frommer has another relevant comment on this matter:[27] ביום ג’ שמות חלם לי, שהגידו לי בשם הרה”צ ר’ פינשע ז”ל מפילץ דאף מי שמגיע לו יסורים ר”ל, סגי ביסורים כ”ש [כל שהוא], דלא עדיף ממרור דלא בעי כזית, ומה”ת סגי במשהו כמ”ש הרא”ש פ”י דפסחים סי’ כ”ה, כמו בזה סגי במשהו There is no need for me to go into this matter in any detail, as it has been comprehensively analyzed in a wonderful article by Levi Cooper.[28] I would just like to call attention to some sources not mentioned by Cooper. 1. R. Mordechai Shabetai Eisenberger,Berurei Halakhot (Netanya, 2006), no. 51, offers a halakhic justification for the Ropshitzer, and claims that it is only applicable to horseradish. 2. The following story, quoting R. Aaron Rokeach, the Belzer Rebbe, appears in Aharon Pollak, ed.,Beito Na’avah Kodesh (2007), vol. 2, p. 482: פ”א, בליל הסדר שנת תש”ט, נכח דודי הר”ר יוסף צבי וועבער ז”ל (לאחר שניצל מגיא ההריגה במלחמה באירופה, וזכה לעלות ארצה אחר החורבן שם), והנה כ”ק מרן זי”ע נתן לו בידו מעט מאוד מה”מרור”. אחד מן הנוכחים שם, הרהיב עוז והעיר למרן זי”ע, ש”זה רק כל שהוא”. נענה מרן זי”ע והתבטא בלשונו “ער האט שוין געהאט גענוג מרירות”! – (בשם בעל העובדא 3. The following story, that R. Joel Teitelbaum of Satmar refused to follow his father-in-law’s practice of eating less than a kezayit of maror, appears in Aharon Perlow, Otzroteihem shel Tzadikim al ha-Torah ve-ha-Moadim (2006 edition), p. 323, quoting Moshian shel Yisrael, vol. 4, p. 17: בליל התקדש חג הפסח בעריכת הסדר היה המנהג בבית דזיקוב לברך על אכילת מרור בשיעור פחות מכזית, וכן נהגו גם בפלאנטש. אולם רבינו (כ”ק מרן אדמו”ר מסאטמאר) ז”ל נהג כפשטות לשון הפוסקים וכנהוג בבית אבותיו הק’ לאכול שיעור מרור כזית כדאיפסקא הילכתא. וכשהיה רבינו ז”ל סמוך על שולחן חותנו (מזיוו”ר – הרה”ק רבי אברהם חיים הורביץ מפלאנטש זצוק”ל) לא נתנו לו שיעור מרור כראוי. ורק פחות מכזית – כמנהגם – ולא רצו שרבינו ז”ל יתנהג אחרת ממנהגם. אבל רבינו ז”ל השכיל להכין ולהצניע מראש מקדם בכיס הגלימא שלו שיעור כזית לאכילת מרור, ובעת עריכת הסדר כשהגיע לקיים מצות אכילת מרור אכל רבינו כשיעור

4. Matityahu Gutman, Belz (Tel Aviv, 1912), p. 31, states: רבי יהושע מבלז אמר: אבי היה פוסק, והוא אמר שאין צריך לאכול כזית מרור, ובתשובות הנדפסות בסו”ס אמרי נועם למועדים כותב שמקובל כך מזקנו הק’ מרופשיץ וכן היו נוהגין כל בני ביתו, מחמת אי בריאות The words I have underlined are how later generations mistakenly attempted to reconcile the practice of the Ropshitzer and his descendants with the halakhah. Excursus Another proof that the medieval German sages never actually saw olives is provided by R. Hayyim Benish – the expert in all matters of halakhic measurements and times – in what is still probably the best discussion of the history and halakhah of the kezayit measurement (and he did not need an entire book to make his points). See Benish, “Shiur Kezayit: Berur Da’at ha- Rishonim ve-ha-Aharonim,” Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael 50 (Kislev- Tevet, 5754), pp. 107-116. R. Benish calls attention to a medieval Ashkenazic series of halakhic rulings published by Shlomo Spitzer in Moriah 8 (Sivan 5738). On p. 4, in discussing the size of an olive and the problem created by the medieval Ashkenazic assumption that two olives equal one egg, the unknown author writes:

ולי הכותב אינו קשה כי ראיתי זיתים בא”י ובירושלים אפילו ששה אינם גדולים כביצה From this we see that the medieval Ashkenazic sages did not know what an olive looked like, and because of this they were mistaken in their assumption that two olives equal one egg. The author himself, who had journeyed to Eretz Yisrael and had seen actual olives, was able to correct his Ashkenazic contemporaries. Yet his statement that an olive is not even one sixth the size of an egg is not in line with the Rashba, Torat ha-Bayit: Mishmeret ha-Bayit, Mossad ha-Rav Kook ed., vol. 2, col. 52 (bayit revi’i, sha’ar rishon), who had olives at his disposal and describes them as less than one fourth the size of an olive. (See R. Benish, p. 109, for the common view that according to Maimonides an olive is one third of an egg.) See also R. Jacob Moelin,Sefer Maharil, ed. Spitzer (Jerusalem, 1989), Likutim, no. 55, that whereas two olives equal one egg, three dried figs also equal an egg. In other words, he believed that a fig is smaller than an olive, which could only be said by someone who never saw an olive. Perhaps he never saw a fig either, but the measurement of three figs equaling one egg is held by the geonim and Maimonides. See R. Eliyahu Zini, Etz Erez, vol. 3, pp. 201-202. There are, of course, different types of olives, and R. Benish, p. 114, has a chart with the different measurements. Regarding the anonymous medieval Ashkenazic author, who stated that an olive is not even a sixth the size of an egg, it is possible that when he returned to Germany he forgot the exact size, and recalled them as being smaller than they actually were. The editor of Torat ha-Bayit, R. Moshe Brun, finds the Rashba’s statement that an olive is not even a quarter of an egg so significant that he remarks: חדוש גדול חידש לנו רבינו בהלכות שיעורין, דיותר מד’ זיתים בכביצה R. Benish concludes that the size of a kezayit is 7.5 square centimeters. Recognizing that this is a good deal smaller than what people are told today, he concludes with the following important words which explain why a kezayit by definition must be a really small size.[29] What he says would appear to be basic to all of the Sages’ measurements, but for some reason I was never taught this in yeshiva: רבים יתמהו ודאי, האם בשיעור זעיר כל כך מקיימים מצוות אכילה הכתובה בתורה. תמיה זו יסודה בחוסר הבנה במושג שיעורי תורה בכלל, ובשיעור אכילה בפרט. בסיס השיעורים בכל מקום ומקום הוא השיעור המזערי ביותר שעליו ניתן לומר שיש לו מהות. וכמו שיעור רוחב אגודל במדות האורך – מדה מחייבת בענינים התלויים במדות אורך (כמו לאו דהשגת גבול. ראה רמב”ם הל’ גנבה פ”ז הי”א), ושיעור פרוטה, שיעור מתחייב בממון, למרות שהוא שיעור זעיר ביותר . . , ואם יקדש אשה בשיעורי ממון זה – מקודשת. וכן הוא ה”כזית” – שיעור אכילה: השיעור המיזערי ביותר שיצא מכלל פירור ויש בו חשיבות אוכל . . . ואין תנאי במצות אכילה שיהיה בו שיעור מיתבא דעתא או שביעה See also Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael 53 (Sivan-Tamuz 5754), pp. 91ff., where R. Benish responds to criticisms of his article. On p. 96 he mentions that one person criticized him by saying that the information he wrote about should not be made public! והנה אמר לי חכם אחד: לא חידשת במאמרך מאומה, הדברים הינם ידועים, אלא שנאמרו, אפילו ע”י גדולי הפוסקים, מפה לאוזן, ואתה הוצאת זאת שלא כדין ושלא לצורך לרשות הרבים Finally, no mention of the size of an olive would be complete without referring to R. Natan Slifkin’s essay on the topic available here. One complicating factor in any discussion of the kezayit is that R. Joseph Karo, Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 586:1, writes: שיעור כזית יש אומרים דהוי כחצי ביצה R. Karo knew what an olive looked like, so why in his codification of the Passover laws would he record the view that it is the size of half an egg? Furthermore, why does he ignore the views of R. Isaac Alfasi, Maimonides, and R. Asher who held that a kezayit is less than this? And finally, how come in Orah Hayyim 210 when he discusses the kezayit he does not define it as half an egg? These points are all raised by R. Hadar Yehudah Margolin in support of R. Benish’s position that when, in the laws of Passover, R. Karo mentions the view that a kezayit is half an egg, this is only to be regarded as a humra. However, R. Karo himself holds that the basic law is that a kezayit is really the actual size of an olive (which is certainly smaller than half an egg). See Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael 51 (Shevat-Adar 5754), p. 119.

In the recently publishedDe-Haziteih le-Rabbi Meir (Jerusalem, 2018), vol. 1, p. 399, we see that R. Meir Soloveitchik did not like the suggestion that medieval Ashkenazic sages did not know how big an olive was. אמר על כך הגר”מ שהרי ההגהות מיימוניות (פרק א’ ממאכלות אסורות אות מ’) מביאים שרבינו תם נתקשה בסימני עוף טהור, ואז עף אל שולחנו עוף טהור, ועל ידי זה ידע את הסימנים. ומזה רואים כמה סייעתא דשמיא היה להם שלא יטעו לומר דבר שאינו נכון, וא”כ איך אפשר לומר שכיון שלא ראו זיתים לכן לא ידעו מה שיעור כזית * * * * My Torah in Motion 2019 summer trips will be to Morocco, Central Europe, and Greece. Information about them will soon be up on the Torah in Motion website.

Notes [1] A. Horowitz, Orhot Rabbenu (Bnei Brak, 1991), vol. 1, p. 364. Horowitz adds that he asked the Steipler how they could appoint a fifteen-year-old rabbi when it says in Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat that a dayan has to be eighteen-years- old. The Steipler replied that a rabbi is not a dayan, as he only decides halakhic questions and is not on a beit din. Horowitz also asked the Steipler about what appears in the Beit Yosef, that semikhah should not be given to anyone under eighteen. The Steipler replied that this is only a general rule, but there are exceptions.

Regarding eighteen as the minimum age of a dayan, contrary to what Horowitz states, this is actually not recorded as halakhah in the Shulhan Arukh. R. Karo writes as follows inHoshen Mishpat 7:3: יש אומרים שאינו ראוי לדון אלא מבן י”ח ומעלה והביא שתי שערות. וי”א דמבן י”ג ומעלה כשר ואפילו לא הביא שתי שערות and according ,יש אומרים ויש אומרים This is actually a case of to R. Yitzhak Yosef the general rule in such a case is that the second opinion is the one we accept. See Ein Yitzhak, vol. 3, pp. 438ff. (Kelalim be-Da’at ha-Shulhan Arukh, no. 28). Sefer Meirat Einayim explains the position that allows a thirteen-year-old dayan as due to the fact that being a dayan . חריפותו ובקיאותו is only dependent on R. Kook refused to give semikhah to a young man as he believed that semikhah should only be given to one who was knowledgeable in the entire Torah (!). See his responsum published in Peri ha-Aretz 5 (1982), pp. 6-9. [2] Tevunah (1861), nos. 39, 40. [3] Sections of this commentary that have not yet appeared in print were recently offered for sale at an auction. See here. [4] Ha-Gaon ha-Hasid Rabbi Meir Marim Shafit. See also the very nice story about R. Shafit recorded here. [5] Habermann, Anshei Sefer ve-Anshei Ma’aseh (Jerusalem, 1974), p. 139. [6] R. Asher Anshel Yehudah Miller,Olamo shel Abba (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 181. [7] The common pronunciation of his name as “Abudraham” is a mistake. See here. [8] See R. Menahem Kasher, Haggadah Shelemah, p. 17 n. 141. [9] Israel Davidson, Otzar ha-Shirah ve-ha-Piyut (New York, 1924), vol. 1, p. 303. As Davidson notes, this is the correct version of the text. [10] This is how the words are pronounced, not yayin nesekh. [11] See R. Levi Ibn Habib, Teshuvot, no. 147 (Kuntres ha- R. Baruch Rabinovich, about .ומתחלה .Semikhah, no. 4), s.v whom I have written a good deal in recent posts (and more is of Munkatch immediately upon his גאב”ד to come) was appointed marriage, when he was only eighteen years old. See R. Nathan David Rabinowich, ed., Hashav Nevonim (N.Y.-Jerusalem, 2016), p. 9. This post deals with young rabbis, not precocious children. However, regarding children wise beyond their years, I just came across the following from R. Hayyim ben Bezalel, Be’er Mayim Hayim (London, 1964), vol. 1, p. 165:

ואני בעודי נער כמו בן ז’ שנים פעם אחת בליל שבת של פרשה זו הסיבו יחד זקנים בעלי הוראה ונתנו ונשאו בזאת הקושיא והייתי מקשיב לקולם לאחר דבריהם אמרתי לחוות דעי גם אני ברשותם . . . והודי לי רבותיי והנהתי להם מאד [11] No. 99 (18 Shevat 5778), p. 6 n. 35. Regarding R. Mazuz, I think readers will enjoy the song devoted to him that recently appeared.

Here are other songs devoted to him

Here is Lipa Schmeltzer on Sukkot 2018 singing before R. Mazuz and R. Shlomo Amar. The first song he sings is a poem that R. Mazuz wrote about Maimonides.

[13] R. Mazuz also shows that the medieval French sages never saw a date, and this explains why they describe it incorrectly. See Bayit Ne’eman, Orah Hayyim, no. 25 (pp. 135, 137-138).

[14] Berakhot no. 107. [15] See Excursus. [16] Interested readers can consult the numerous sources listed by R. Eliezer Brodt, Likutei Eliezer, pp. 38ff. [17] Sheki’in (Jerusalem, 1939), p. 22. [18] See R. Moses Sofer, She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim, no. 23, who discusses the matter of birkat kohanim, as it is also quoted by Rabad in his commentary toTamid 33b from Sefer ha-Mikzto’ot. R. Efraim Zalman Margulies, Beit Efrayim, Orah Hayyim no. 6, explains the Ashkenazic practice of not reciting birkat kohanim every day as due to the concern that there might be a niddah in a kohen’s house. With reference to the notion that a kohen does not recite birkat kohanim if there is a niddah in his house, which as just noted is quoted by Rabad from Sefer ha-Miktzo’ot, R. Joseph Kafih writes (commentary to Moreh Nevukhim 3:47, n. 31): והדעות הללו חדרו גם לשכבות מסוימות של היהדות והחלו להתנהג במנהגותיהם, ראה לדוגמא פירוש הראב”ד למסכת תמיד הפרק האחרון בשם ספר המקצעות In other words, R. Kafih is in agreement with Aptowitzer that this is an example of sectarian ideas finding their way into the writings of rishonim. The late Yaakov Elman even saw Zoroastrian influence in a practice that would become part of the Niddah laws. He wrote the following here:

As to the non-elitist Babylonian Jews, we have a report regarding the ordinary Babylonian Jewish women. Rabbi Zera reports that the “daughters of Israel had undertaken to be so strict with themselves as to wait for seven [clean] days [after the appearance] of a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed [although biblically they are required only to separate for seven days from the onset of menstruation]” (Berakhot, fol. 31a; Megillah, fol. 28b; Niddah, fol. 66a). It is clear from Niddah (fol. 66a) that this stringency was a popular practice and not a rabbinic prohibition, probably in response to a “holier than thou” attitude perceived by the populace as emanating from their Persian neighbors. It seems that Babylonian Jewish women had internalized their Zoroastrian neighbors’ critique of Rabbinic Judaism’s relatively “easy-going” ways in this regard. [19] Mehkarim be-Sifrut ha-Geonim (Jerusalem, 1941), pp. 166-168. [20] Of course, in modern times people can also be quite credulous. Since we are discussing menstruation, here is another myth repeated by R. Hayyim David Halevi, Mekor Hayyim, vol. 5, p. 70: וכבר הוכח שאחיזת יד האשה הנדה בפרחים ממהרת נבילתם [21] Kitvei Ramban, ed. Chavel, vol. 1, p. 381. See also ibid., p. 149, that he believed it is possible for necromancers to raise the spirits of the dead. [22] Kitvei Ramban, vol. 2, p. 296. Nahmanides wrote this in the thirteenth century when all sorts of tall tales were believed. Yet I still recall how surprised I was when told by a high school rebbe in the 1980s that he believed that the Ten Tribes were hidden somewhere on earth, waiting to be discovered. Perhaps relevant to this, R. Aharon Leib Steinman writes that the reason we cannot find the Sambatyon river is because of hester panim. See Ayelet ha-Shahar, Devarim, p. 190. In general, it never ceases to amaze me how even very great figures have been taken in by phony stories. For one example (and I could provide a very long list of similar examples), here is a story about the power of the evil eye that R. Joseph Zechariah Stern records inZekher Yehosef, vol. 4, Tahalukhot ha-Agaddot, p. 13a. It actually upset me when I saw this, as I am a big admirer of R. Stern and was disappointed that he, too, readily accepted a phony story as fact. ובענין עין הרע שנמצא באגדות הנה גם אנשים שאין להם חלק בתלמוד מחכמיהם ענו אמן על התאמתם וכנודע ע”פ מ”ע [מכתבי עת] כי הרופאים בע”מ פ”ב [בעיר מלוכה פטרבורג] עשו נסיון מבחינה שעשו שהניחו ככר לחם לפני אחד מחייבי מיתות ושהרעיבו אותו שלש ימים מקודם, ואותו חלק מהלחם שהניחו לפניו מבלי ליתן אותו לנגוע בו רק במבטי עיניו נהפך אח”כ לסם המות This source, and the one from R. Steinman mentioned earlier in this note, are referred to in the recently publishedOtzar Hemdah (n.p., 2018), pp. 81, 150. See also ibid., p. 219, which cites R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim,Over Orah (Jerusalem, 2003), p. 237: כבר נודע שבעת פריחת הגפנים אז גם היין שכבר הוא מכמה שנים במרתפים תוסס, (וכן אנו רואים בעת פריחת התבואות אז העיסה תוססת), ודבר זה נעלם מחכמי הטבע, אבל הכל רואים דבר זה בחוש, וא”כ ודאי שגם מה שכשאומרים דבר שמועה בשמו גורם ששפתותיו דובבות בקבר אין להתפלא כלל, אף שאין אנו מבינים דבר How is it that R. Rabinowitz-Teomim can write that everyone sees the phenomenon with grapes and wheat he describes when the entire description is completely without basis?Otzar Hemdah, p. 219, cites a similar passage from R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai,Homat Anakh (Jerusalem, 1986), parashat Matot (p. 67a): הלא תראה היין שהוא במרתף ומונח בחבית סתומה בעת שדורכים הענבים אף שהוא רחוק מאד היין שבחבית מתנועע והוא פלא Again, we have to ask, how is it that so many people believed that they saw something which never occurred? [23] The Impact of Science on Society (London and New York, 2016), p. 6. [24] Hazon Ish, Hilkhot Shabbat 39:1 (Kuntres ha-Shiurim). [25] Eretz Tzvi, vol. 1, no. 85. [26] I say the meaning “appears to be,” as there is a famous comment of R. Asher ben Jehiel, Pesahim, ch. 10, no. 25, which some understand to be suggesting a different approach to maror and the obligation of kezayit. See R. Aryeh Leib Gunzberg, Sha’agat Aryeh, no. 100; R. Mordechai Shabbetai Eisenberger, Berurei Halakhot (Netanya, 2006), no. 51; R. Samuel Pardes, Avnei Shmuel (Jerusalem, 1993), no. 13; R. Asher Weiss, Minhat Asher: Haggadah shel Pesah (Jerusalem, 2004), pp. 203ff. [27] Eretz Tzvi, vol. 2, p. 401. [28] “Bitter Herbs in Hasidic Galicia,”Jewish Studies Internet Journal 12 (2013), pp. 1-40. [29] See also R. Naphtali Zvi Judah Berlin, Meromei Sadeh, Pesahim 39a, who states that a kezayit is very small: וזה ברור דשיעור כזית המבואר בשו”ע הוא שיעור קטן מאד

Another “Translation” by Artscroll, the Rogochover and the Radichkover

Another “Translation” by Artscroll, the Rogochover and the Radichkover Marc B. Shapiro 1. As I discuss in Changing the Immutable, sometimes a choice of translation serves as a means of censorship. In other words, one does not need to delete a text. Simply mistranslating it will accomplish one’s goal. Jay Shapiro called my attention to an example of this in the recent ArtScroll translation of Sefer ha-Hinukh, no. 467. In discussing the prohibition to gash one’s body as idol- worshippers so, Sefer ha-Hinukh states:

אבל שנשחית גופנו ונקלקל עצמנו כשוטים, לא טוב לנו ולא דרך חכמים ואנשי בינה היא, רק מעשה המון הנשים הפחותות וחסרי הדעת שלא הבינו דבר במעשה הא-ל ונפלאותיו.

The Feldheim edition ofSefer ha-Hinnukh, with Charles Wengrov’s translation, reads as follows:

But that we should be be destructive to our body and injure ourselves like witless fools—this is not good for us, and is not the way of the wise and the people of understanding. It is solely the activity of the mass of low, inferior women lacking in sense, who have understood nothing of God’s handiwork and his wonders.

This is a correct translation. However, Artscroll “translates” -as “masses of small המון הנשים הפחותות וחסרי הדעת the words minded and unintelligent people.” This is clearly a politically correct translation designed to avoid dealing with Sefer ha-Hinukh’s negative comment about the female masses. I will only add that Sefer ha-Hinukh’s statement is indeed troubling. Why did he need to throw in “the women”? His point would have been the exact same leaving this out, as we can see from ArtScroll’s “translation.” Knowing what we know about the “small-minded unintelligent” men in medieval times, it is hard to see why he had to pick on women in this comment, as the masses of ignorant men would have also been a good target for his put-down.

2. In my post here I wrote:

One final point I would like to make about the Rogochover relates to his view of secular studies. . . . Among the significant points he makes is that, following Maimonides, a father must teach his son “wisdom.” He derives this from Maimonides’ ruling in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Rotzeah 5:5: הבן שהרג את אביו בשגגה, גולה. וכן האב שהרג את בנו בשגגה, גולה על ידו, במה דברים אמורים. כשהרגו שלא בשעת לימוד, או שהיה מלמדו אומנות אחרת שאינו צריך לה. אבל אם ייסר את בנו כדי ללמדו תורה או חכמה או אומנות ומת פטור He adds, however, that instruction in “secular” subjects is not something that the community should be involved in, with the exception of medicine, astronomy, and the skills which allow one to take proper measurements, since all these matters have halakhic relevance. In other words, according to the Rogochover, while Jewish schools should teach these subjects, no other secular subjects (“wisdom”) should be taught by the schools, but the father should arrange private instruction for his son.

רואים דהרמב”ם ס”ל דגם חכמה מותר וצריך אב ללמוד [!] לבנו אבל ציבור ודאי אסורים בשאר חכמות חוץ מן רפואה ותקפות [!] דשיך [!] לעבובר [צ”ל לעבור] וגמטרא [!] השייך למדידה דזה ג”כ בגדר דין He then refers to the Mekhilta, parashat Bo (ch. 18), which cites R. Judah ha-Nasi as saying that a father must The Rogochover does not explain .ישוב המדינה teach his son what yishuv ha-medinah means, just as he earlier does not explain what is meant by “wisdom,” but these terms obviously include the secular studies that are necessary to function properly in society.

Dr. Dianna Roberts-Zauderer takes issue with my assumption the word used by Maimonides, includes ,(חכמה) ”that “wisdom what I have termed “secular studies”. (The Touger translation also has “secular knowledge”). She correctly points out that it means philosophy. She חכמה when the medievals used the word adds: “Does it not make sense that Maimonides would advocate the learning of philosophy? Or that the Rogochover would forbid the learning of philosophy in yeshivot, but only permit it at home with a teacher hired by the father?” often means philosophy, I do not think חכמה Although the term we must assume that this is its meaning inHilkhot Rotzeah 5:5. Based on parallel passages in Maimonides’ writings where the same halakhah is mentioned, R. Nachum in this case חכמה Eliezer Rabinovitch claims that the word actually means good character traits.[1] He sums up his discussion as follows: כוונת רבינו אחת היא בכל המקומות, דהיינו לימוד מדות הנקרא חכמה Quite apart from this, in my discussion I was dealing with how the Rogochover understood the passage in Maimonides. We have to remember the context of the Rogochover’s letter. He was asked about the study of secular subjects, as was the practice among the German Orthodox. He was not asked about the study of philosophy per se. Furthermore, in the passage cited from manuscript by R. Judah Aryeh Wohlgemuth,[2] which I referred to in the previous post, the Rogochover specifically inHilkhot Rotzeah 5:5 as חכמה understands Maimonides’ term -which he identifies with what R. Judah ha ,שאר החכמות meaning .ישוב המדינה Nasi calls Regarding the Rogochover, there are a few things people mentioned to me after seeing my post which I think are worthwhile to record. Dr. Rivka Blau, the daughter of R. Pinchas Teitz, told me that her uncle, R. Elchanan Teitz, would on occasion cut the Rogochover’s hair. In the post I mentioned how the Rogochover acknowledged that his learning Torah while sitting shiva was a sin, but he did so anyway as the Torah was worth it. R. Yissachar Dov Hoffman called my attention to the following comment about this by R. Ovadiah Yosef, Meor Yisrael, Berakhot 24b: לפע”ד לא יאומן כי יסופר שת”ח יעבור על הלכה פסוקה בטענה כזו. והעיקר דס”ל כמ”ש הירושלמי פ”ג דמ”ק שאם היה להוט אחר ד”ת מותר לעסוק בתורה בימי אבלו, דהו”ל כדין אסטניס שלא גזרו בו איסור רחיצה מפני צערו. In the post I mentioned that the Shibolei ha-Leket appears to be the only rishon who adopts the position of the Yerushalmi referred to by R. Ovadiah. R. Yissachar Dov Hoffman called my attention to R. Yehudah Azulai, Simhat Yehudah, vol. 1, Yoreh Deah no. 40, which is a comprehensive responsum on the topic of a mourner studying Torah. R. Azulai notes that a few recently published texts of rishonim record the position of the Yerushalmi. He also mentions that according to some rishonim the prohibition is only to study on the first day of mourning. In studying R. Azulai’s responsum, I found another source that could be used to defend the Rogochover’s learning Torah during shiva. R. Meir ben Shimon ha-Meili writes:[3] ונראה לומר דלדברי כל פוסקים העיון מבלי הקריאה מותר, שאינו אלא הרהור בעלמא, ולא חמיר אבלות משבת דאמרינן דבור אסור הרהור מותר, וכל שכן הרהור בדברי תורה לאבל שהוא מותר . . . והלכך מותר לו לאבל לעיין בספר, ובלבד שלא יקרא בו בפיו. R. Meir ben Shimon adds that despite what he wrote, the common practice is for a mourner not to read any Torah books. Yet as we can see, he believes that this is halakhically permitted as long as one does not read out loud. R. Chaim Rapoport called my attention to the following passage in a new book about the late rav of Kefar Habad,Ha-Rav Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi (Kefar Habad, 2017), p. 546: יצוין בהקשר זה למעשה משעשע, ששח הרב אשכנזי בשם הרה”ח ר’ אליהו חיים אלטהויז הי”ד, אודות אסיפה שכינס הרבי הריי”ץ עם הגיעו לריגה שבלטביה. הרוגצ’ובר נכח באותה ישיבה, ומשנמשכו הנאומים, התקשה הגאון לשבת במנוחה, והוא הסיר את כובעו והשליכו על הבקבוקים שניצבו על השולחן, תוך שערם כוסות שורה על שורה בפירמידה, וכן שפך מים מכוס אחת לשנייה וכדומה. הרב ד”ר מאיר הילדסיימר [!] ע”ה מברלין, שהיה יקה מובהק, תהה לפשר התופעה והתקשה להכילה. הרבי הריי”ץ חש בפליאתו וציין באוזניו, כי הרוגצ’ובר הינו “שר התורה, וכל רז לא אניס ליה”. השיב הרב הילדסהיימר: “הכול טוב ויפה, אולם נורמאלי זה לא”. I am surprised that such a passage, using the words “not normal” about behavior of the Rogochover, was published, especially in a Habad work. As is well known, there is a special closeness in Habad to the Rogochover, as he himself was from a Habad family (although it was not Lubavitch but from the Kopust branch of Habad).[4] Ha-Rav Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi also has a number of other stories about the Rogochover. The following appears on p. 211: Once R. Jacob David Wilovsky of Slutzk visited R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk and told him that he wanted to also visit the Rogochover. R. Meir Simhah attempted to dissuade him, saying that the Rogochover would put him down like he puts everyone down. Yet R. Wilovsky visited him and the Rogochover did not put him down. He said to the Rogochover, “I heard that you put down everyone, but I see that you treat me with respect.” The Rogochover replied, “I put down gedolim, not ketanim.” In my post on the Rogochover, I showed this page from R. Menahem Kasher’s Mefaneah Tzefunot (Jerusalem, 1976), p. 2. I wrote: Look at the end of the first paragraph of the note on p. 2. The “problematic” quotation of the Rogochover, saying that he will happily be punished for his sin in studying Torah, as the Torah is worth it, has been deleted. Instead, the Rogochover is portrayed as explaining his behavior as due to the passage in the Yerushalmi. While all the other authors who discuss this matter and want to “defend” the Rogochover claim that his real reason for studying Torah was based on the Yerushalmi, in R. Kasher’s work this defense is not needed as now we have the Rogochover himself giving this explanation! Yet the Rogochover never said this. R. Zevin’s text has been altered and a spurious comment put in the mouth of the Rogochover. By looking carefully at the text you can see that originally R. Zevin was quoted correctly. Notice how there is a space between the first and second paragraphs and how the false addition is a different size than the rest of the words. What appears to have happened is that the original continuation of the paragraph was whited out and the fraudulent words were substituted in its place. Yet this was done after everything was typeset so the evidence of the altering remains. I had forgotten that the 1976 edition of Mefaneah Tzefunot, which is the one found on Otzar ha-Hokhmah and hebrewbooks.org, was the second publication of the book. I thank David Scharf for reminding me of this and for sending me copies of the following pages. Here are the Hebrew and English title pages of the first edition.

Notice how the two title pages have different publication dates. At that time, Yeshiva University was helping to fund R. Kasher’s work on the Rogochover.[5] Here is page 2 of the preface. As you can see, in the original publication the text from R. Zevin appears in its entirety. It is only in the second edition that R. Kasher altered what R. Zevin wrote. There is a good deal more to say about the Rogochover, so let me add another point. In 1892 R. Dov Baer Judah Leib Ginzberg published his Emunat Hakhamim. Included in it, on pages 23b-24b, is a report of how the Rogochover understood the time of death. I believe that what he states can be used to support the argument that brain death is equal to halakhic death. Here are the pages.

The matter of antinomianism, and in particular the Rogochover violating halakhah in the name of a higher purpose, is of interest to many people. In a future post I will cite an example concerning which I think everyone (or most everyone) will agree that even though the halakhah is clear, nevertheless, even the most pious will not hesitate to violate the halakhah in this particular case, again, because of a larger concern. For now, I want to call attention to another who, like the Rogochover, was very unusual. R. Shlomo Aviner writes as follows:[6]

בישיבת “מרכז הרב” היה גאון אחד בשם הרדיצ’קובר, שהיה מתנהג בצורה משונה. הוא היה נכנס לשירותים עם ספר הרמב”ם. אמרו לו: אסור! ותשובותו: “הרי גם הרמב”ם עצמו היה נכנס לשרותים!”כשנפטר, היו האנשים נבוכים בהספד שלו, שהרי היה תלמיד חכם, אך התנהג בצורה מוזרה מאד. הרב נתן רענן, חתנו של מרן הרב, הספיד אותו ואמר, שגדולתו היתה אהבת התורה, ומרוב אהבת התורה עשה דברים שלא יעשו. הוא חטא חטאים שנבעו מאהבת התורה.

R. Aviner speaks about a gaon known as the Radichkover who was quite strange. He would go into the restroom holding a copy of the Mishneh Torah. When he was told that this is forbidden, he replied that Maimonides himself went to the restroom! In other words, if Maimonides could go into the restroom then certainly his book can be brought into it. The Radichkover actually tells this story himself about bringing R. Reuven Katz’s book, Degel Reuven, into the restroom.[7] When he died, people did not know how to eulogize him, because on the one hand he was a great talmid hakham, but on the other hand he acted in a very strange manner. R. Aviner tells us that R. Natan Ra’anan, the son-in-law of R. Kook, delivered the eulogy and said that his greatness was his love of Torah, and due to this great love he did things that were improper. “He sinned yet these sins arose from his love of Torah.” It is obviously not very common that a eulogy mentions improper things done by the deceased. It is also understandable why, due to his unconventionality, the Radichkover reminds people of the Rogochover. For those who have never heard of him, his name was R. Yaakov Robinson (1889-1966), and before coming to Eretz Yisrael he studied with R. Baruch Ber Leibowitz. You can read more about him here and here. Two responsa in R. Moshe Feinstein’s Iggerot Moshe were sent to the Radichkover. Both of these responsa are from 1933, when R. Moshe was still in Russia.[8] If you look at the Wikishiva page on the Radichkover here, it says that he died in 1977. So how do I know that this is incorrect and that he died in 1966? Because he died at the same time as R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg. Here is a page from Beit Yaakov, Shevat 5726, p. 31, and you can see the announcement of both of their funerals.

It is typical of an Agudah publication like Beit Yaakov that it would falsely state that R. Weinberg was connected for many years with Agudat Israel. This is as false as the newspaper’s statement that he served as rosh yeshiva in Montreux. A number of sharp comments of the Radichkover became well known in the Jerusalem yeshiva world and are mentioned in the two sites I linked to above. See also here for more of his sayings. Here is one I liked, which was written by the Radichkover in one of his works (mentioned here).[9] הבוקר אחרי התפילה ניגש אלי יהודי ושאל אותי למה אני יושב ב”ויברך דוד”. חשבתי לעצמי, זה שאני יושב בלי אשה, זה לא מפריע לו, זה שאני יושב בלי פרנסה, זה לא מפריע לו, מה כן מפריע לו, שאני יושב בויברך דוד . . . Here is another great story dealing with the Hazon Ish (mentioned here) ר’ יענקל היה נתון תדיר בתחושת רדיפה. מעולם לא אכל אוכל שלא הכין בעצמו ועוד שאר דברים ע”ז הדרך. פעם נזעק לביתו של החזון אי”ש בטענה כי אחדים מבני הישיבה ניסו להרעילו. מה עליו לעשות. שאלו החזון אי”ש: “מה שמו בכוס קודם – את התה או את הסם”. הרהר ר’ יענקל קלות וענה: “קודם את התה ואח”כ את הסם”. נענה החזו”א: “אנחנו הרי פוסקים שתתאה גבר”. ונח דעתיה. In the recently published conversations of the late R. Meir Soloveitchik, Da-Haziteih le-Rabbi Meir, vol. 1, p. 159, the Hazon Ish’s wife is quoted as saying as follows about the Radichkover:

מה”שברי לוחות”, אפשר לראות ולשער מה היו הלוחות השלמות, כאשר היה בריא While the Radichkover never published any full-length books, he published a number of short pieces. Here is the first page of his Masa Dumah. Here is the first page of his Olam Gadol Oleh ve-Olam Katan Shokea. A short glance at either of these works should suffice to show that we are not dealing with a “normal” talmid hakham. In Olam Gadol, p. 10, he reports that the Rogochover said about him that he was the greatest Torah scholar alive! Here is page 15 of Olam Gadol. It hardly needs to be said that what he includes here about the locked rest rooms is not the typical material found in seforim. In Masa Dumah, p. 8, he makes the following sharp comment about R. Joseph Kahaneman. “They asked me in the Ponovezh yeshiva, what I have to say about the Ponovezher Rav. I said to them that he is greater than the Maharal of Prague. The Maharal created one golem and he created three hundred golems. The Ponovezh Yeshiva is a factory for am ha’aratzut.” Excursus The people who saw the Radichkover sitting during Vayvarekh David were bothered since everyone knows that this is recited standing. The ArtScroll siddur states: “One must stand from however ,אתה הוא ה’ הא-להים until after the phrase ויברך דויד there is a generally accepted custom to remain standing until I don’t like this formulation. On what basis can ”.ברכו after ArtScroll state that “one must stand”? The word “must” means that we are dealing with a halakhah, i.e., an obligation. But that is not the case at all. Standing in Vayvarekh David is only a minhag, like much else we do in the prayers.[10] As such, I think it would have been proper for ArtScroll to ויברך write, “The generally accepted practice is to stand from .etc ”דויד R. Moses Isserles, Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 51:7, refers to standing in Vayvarekh David, and his language is as follows:[11] ונהגו לעמוד כשאומרים ברוך שאמר ויברך דוד וישתבח it is“ ,לחומרא בעלמא :On this passage, the Vilna Gaon writes only a stringency”. R. Jehiel Michel Epstein,Arukh ha- Shulhan, Orah Hayyim 51:8, also writes that there is no halakhah to stand for Vayvarekh David. ומצד הדין אין שום קפידא לבד בשמ”ע ומחויבים לעמוד וקדושה וקדיש וברכו. R. Epstein returns to this matter in Arukh ha-Shulhan, Yoreh Deah 214:23. This passage is not well known as this volume of Arukh ha-Shulhan was only printed in 1991 and is not included in the standard sets of Arukh ha-Shulhan that people buy. R. Epstein writes: מדינא דגמ’ מותר לישב בכל התפלה לבד שמונה עשרה דצריך בעמידה ושיש הרבה נוהגים ע”פ מה שנדפס בסידורים לעמוד כמו בויברך דוד וישתבח ושירת הים וכיוצא בהם גם זה אינו מנהג לקרא למי שאינו עושה כן משנה ממנהג וראיה שהרי יש מן הגדולים שחולקים בזה. According to R. Epstein, one does not even violate a minhag by sitting for Vayvarekh David and the rest of the prayers through Yishtabah. So we see that when it comes to standing, Vayvvarekh David has the same status as Yishtabah, i.e., standing for both is minhag. Yet ArtScroll mistakenly separates the two, regarding the standing for Vayvarekh David as halakhah and the standing for Yishtabah (and everything in between) as “a generally accepted custom.” It is worth noting that the Mishnah Berurah, Orah Hayyim 51:19, only mentions the custom of standing in Vayvarekh David, not the current practice of standing until after Yishtabah. I must note, however, that the Kaf ha-Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 51:43, quotes R. Isaac Luria that one has to during Vayevarekh David. This is similar to ,צריך לעמוד ,stand ArtScroll’s formulation, but I find it hard to believe that ArtScroll’s instructions are based on kabbalistic ideas. R. Jacob Moelin (the Maharil) did not stand forVayvarekh David. See Sefer Maharil, Makhon Yerushalayim ed., Hilkhot Tefilah, no. 1, p. 435, and R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, Mekor Hayyim 51:7. See also R. Jacob Sasportas, Ohel Yaakov, no. 74, for a report that in Hamburg they did not stand for Vayvarekh David. R. Samuel Garmizon (seventeenth century), Mishpetei Tzedek, no. 70, was asked about someone who was accustomed to stand in Vayvarekh David (and also in Barukh She-Amar) but now wishes to sit. Is he allowed to? R. Garmizon states that if he mistakenly thought that it was an obligation to stand and has now learned that it is only a pious practice (minhag hasidim), then he is permitted to sit and it is not regarded as if he took on a stringency as an obligation. The Yemenite practice is also not to stand forVayvarekh David. See R. Yihye Salih, Piskei Maharitz, ed. Ratsaby, vol. 1, p. 118. While readers might find this all interesting, they might also be wondering what it has to do with the Radichkover, since hasn’t Ashkenazic practice in the last few generations been universally to stand? Actually, this has not been the case. R. Israel Zev Gustman stated that in the Lithuanian yeshivot the practice was to sit forVayvarekh David, and also for Yishtabah. They only stood for Barukh She-Amar and the kaddish after Yishtabah. See Halikhot Yisrael, ed. Taplin (Lakewood, 2004), p. 117. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach said that the general practice is to sit for Vayvarekh David. See R. Nahum Stepansky, Ve-Alehu Lo Yibol, vol. 1, p. 61: יש הרבה דברים שכתוב שנהגו לעמוד בהם, ואנחנו רואים שנוהגים שלא לעמוד בהם. ב”ויברך דוד” כותב הרמ”א שנהגו לעמוד – ולא עומדים. I find this astounding. I have been to Ashkenazic synagogues all over the word and I have never seen people sit for Vayvarekh David. Yet R. Shlomo Zalman says that this is what people do. This passage comes from a discussion of how R. Shlomo Zalman dealt with a young yeshiva student who pressed him that people in the synagogue should stand when someone gets an aliyah and recites Barkhu. R. Shlomo Zalman replied that the minhag is to sit, adding, “You don’t see what people do?!” In other words, the fact that people sit when someone gets an aliyah shows us that this is the minhag and it should not be changed, despite what might appear in various halakhic texts. Regarding standing during prayers, I have noticed something else. When I was young many of the old timers would sit for the various kaddishes. Today, in the Ashkenazic world, it seems that everyone stands for every kaddish, and this is in line with what R. Moses Isserles writes in Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 56:1. Also, it seems that for the communalmi- sheberakh for sick people everyone also stands, and in some shuls they announce that everyone should stand. Why is this done? I cannot think of any reason to stand for thismi- sheberakh unless it is a way to get people to stop talking.

Michael Feldstein recently commented to me that in the last ten years or so he has seen something that did not exist in earlier years, namely, people standing for Parashat Zakhor. I, too, noticed this in my shul, but it has only been going on for a year or two. This year, no one announced that people should stand. Some just stood up on their own and pretty much the entire shul then joined in. Unless the rabbis start announcing that people can sit down, in a few years it will probably become obligatory to stand for Parashat Zakhor, much like it now seems to be obligatory to repeat the entire verse, whereas when I was young the only words to be repeated were I always paid attention to this as Ki) .תמחה את זכר עמלך Tetze is my bar mitzva parashah.) Today, if the Torah reader tries to repeat only these words, they will tell him to go back and repeat the entire verse. What we see from all of this is that customs are constantly being created, and they often arise from the “ritual instinct” of the people, without any rabbinic guidance. the yud is a sheva ויברך Two final points: 1. In the word nah (silent shewa). 2. The accent is on the second to last not on the final syllable, the ,ב penultimate) syllable, the) This word also appears in Friday night kiddush, and it is .ר very common to hear people, including rabbis, make the mistake of treating the yud as a sheva na (vocal shewa) and also putting the accent on the last syllable. Many people also make a mistake at the beginning of kiddush by pronouncing the word ,כ with the accent on the second to last syllable, the ויכלו Another common .ל when it should be on the last syllable, the pronunciation mistake is found in the Shabbat morning kiddush. not ,י has the accent on the second to last syllable, the וינח .נ on the final syllable, the Regarding the instructions in the ArtScroll siddur, another example of confusion is found in the commentary onAv Ha- Rahamim, pp. 454-455. ArtScroll writes: As a general rule, the memorial prayer [Av ha-Rahamim] is omitted on occasions when Tachanun would not be said on weekdays, but there are any numbers of varying customs in this matter and each congregation should follow its own אב practice. During Sefirah, however, all agree that is recited even on Sabbaths when it would הרחמים ordinarily be omitted, because many bloody massacres took place during that period at the time of the Crusades. Here, too, there are varying customs, and each congregation should follow its own. In the second-to-last sentence, ArtScroll says that “all agree”, but in the very next sentence it states that “there are varying customs.” If there are varying customs, then obviously not “all agree”. Incidentally, R. Zvi Yehudah Kook said Av ha-Rahamim every Shabbat, i.e., even when the accepted minhag is to omit it, since he felt that after the Holocaust this was the appropriate thing to do. SeeVa-Ani be-Golat Sibir (Jerusalem, 1992), p. 298. Finally, since I have been speaking about different customs in prayer, I should mention something that I forgot to include in my post here, dealing with China. I believe that, outside of Israel, there is only one Ashkenazic synagogue in the world that has birkat kohanim every day.[12] This is Ohel Leah in Hong Kong. (R. Mordechai Grunberg, who has traveled all over the world as an OU mashgiach and currently works in China, told me that as far as he knows this statement is correct. I had the pleasure to spend Shabbat with him and three mashgichim from the Star-K at the wonderful Chabad House in Shanghai in June 2018.) I have no doubt that the reason for the Ohel Leah minhag is because its nineteenth-century community was Sephardic. At some time in the twentieth century (no one was able to tell me when) the liturgy became Ashkenazic, but the dailybirkat kohanim was kept. Interestingly, although the liturgy is Ashkenazic, it is nusah sefard. I assume the reason for this is that when they decided to adopt the Ashkenazic liturgy they wanted it to still have a Sephardic flavor, and that is why they chose nusah sefard. * * * * * * *

2. Simcha Goldstein called my attention to how earlier this year the 5 Towns Jewish Times “touched up” a picture of Ivanka Trump. 3. Here is a painting of the Rav, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. It was commissioned by his wife when he was fifty years old. The Rav later gave this painting to Rabbi Julius Berman, and it is currently hanging in his home. I thank Rabbi Berman who graciously allowed me to publish a picture of the painting. 4. Tzvi H. Adams contributed three fascinating and thought- provoking posts to the Seforim Blog dealing with the impact of Karaism on rabbinic literature. He has now published a comprehensive article on this matter inOqimta , available here. Its title is “The Development of a Waiting Period Between Meat and Dairy: 9th-14th Centuries.” There is a good deal to say about this article, but let me just make a couple of comments. On p. 4 he writes:

Even many minhagim extant today were arguably initiated as a response to the Karaite movement. For example, many historians agree that the recital of the 3rd chapter from Mishnat Shabbat, “Bamme Madlikin,” on Friday evenings following the prayer service was introduced during the time of the geonim with the intent of reinforcing the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbat, in opposition to the Karaite view that no fire may be present in one’s home on Shabbat.[13] Similar arguments have been made for the origins of the custom of reading Pirkei Avot, the introduction of which traces rabbinic teachings to Sinai, on Shabbat afternoons. Recent scholarship has demonstrated that the creation of Ta’anit Esther in geonic times was likely a reaction to Karaite practices.

Later in the article, p. 57 n. 141, Adams mentions what might be the most prominent example of a response to Karaite practices, namely, reciting a blessing on the Shabbat candle. This blessing does not appear in the Talmud.[14] It is a geonic innovation, and according to R. Kafih it was instituted in opposition to the Karaite view that no fire should be burning in one’s home on the Sabbath.[15] He argues that by adding a blessing to the candle lighting, the geonim created an anti-Karaite ritual. While the Karaites would sit in the dark every Friday night, not only would the Jews have light, but they would recite a blessing before lighting the candle,[16] thus showing their rejection of the Karaite position.[17] R. Meir Mazuz makes the exact same point,[18] as does R. Abraham Eliezer Hirschowitz,[19] Isaac Hirsch Weiss,[20] Jacob Z. Lauterbach,[21] and Naphtali Wieder.[22] In fact, some have argued that not only the blessing but the candle lighting itself was instituted in response to heretics who did not use fire on the Sabbath. As Lauterbach states, “It was as a protest against the Samaritans and the Sadducees.”[23] R. Kafih sees R. Joseph Karo as sharing this opinion. He writes as follows, quoting Maggid Meisharim (and assuming that what the Maggid says represents R. Karo’s view).[24] וכתב מרן בספרו מגיד מישרים ר”פ ויקהל ואמר ביום השבת, למימר דדוקא ביום השבת גופיה הוא דאסור לאדלקא, אבל מבעוד יום לאדלקה ליה ויהא מדליק ומבעיר ביומא דשבתא שרי. ולאפוקי מקראים דלית להו בוצינא דדליק ביומא דשבתא ע”ש. נראה שגם מרן ראה בחובת הדלקת נר בשבת גם פעולה נגד דעות הכופרים בתורה שבע”פ שעליהם נאמר ורשעים בחשך ידמו. Regarding the Shabbat candle, it is also worth noting that R. Judah Leib Landsberg actually stated that the practice of candle lighting was adopted from the Persians. Since the Jews were so attached to what was a pagan practice, Ezra and Nehemiah directed this practice towards a holy purpose, much like the origin of sacrifices was explained by Maimonides.[25] ואפילו היה דומה למנהגי הפרסיים, לא היה ביד עזרא ונחמיה הכח והרצון לעקור המנהג הנשתרש באומה משנים קדמוניות, ולכבה האש זר “החברים” מבית ישראל. ובכל זאת למען תת לו איזה חינוך קדושה קדשוהו ותקנוהו להדליק האש של חול לנר קודש לקדושת השבת, כסברת הרמב”ם ז”ל בענין קרבנות כנודע. He later acknowledged that this was not a serious explanation and claimed that the practice of candle lighting went back to Moses.[26] הרי .One final comment about Karaites: Rashi, Sukkah 35b, s.v has a strange formulation. In discussing the prohibition ,יש to redeem terumah so that an Israelite could eat it, Rashi writes:

הרי יש בה היתר אכילה לכהן, וישראל נמי נפיק בה, או לקחה מכהן הואיל ויכול להאכילה לבן בתו כהן, אבל פדיון אין לה להיות ניתרת לאכילת ישראל, והאומר כן רשע הוא

How is it that Rashi refers to one who makes a mistake in this Many people have attempted to explain this ?רשע matter as a passage. R. Isaac Zev Soloveitchik noted that there must have been a sect that believed that it was permitted to redeem terumah, and that is why Rashi responded so sharply.[27] Regarding this suggestion of R. Soloveitchik we .חכם עדיף מנביא ,can say

R. Tuvya Preschel’s Ma’amrei Tuvyah, volume 3, recently appeared. On p. 67 it reprints an article that appeared in Sinai in 1966. Preschel points out that the notion that terumah can be redeemed is stated by none other than Anan ben David in his Sefer ha-Mitzvot. It appears that Rashi knew of this Karaite opinion and this explains his harsh reaction. This was a great insight by Preschel, Unfortunately, while this insight has been cited by many in the last fifty years, Preschel is almost never given credit. 5. Many countries in Europe have Stolpersteins. These are brass plates, created by the artist Gunter Demnig, commemorating martyrs of the Holocaust. They are put in the pavement in front of buildings where the martyrs lived. A few years ago Demnig also started doing this for survivors of the Holocaust. I arranged to have one made for R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg. After almost two years of waiting, I am happy to report that on June 18, 2018, a Stolperstein was placed at Wilmersdorfer Strasse 106, in Berlin. There was a little ceremony when the Stolperstein was inserted. Here is a picture of Demnig installing it as well as some other pictures that I think people will find moving. [1] Yad Peshutah, Hilkhot Rotzeah 5:5. [2] Yesodot Hinukh ha-Dat le-Dor (Riga, 1937), p. 250. [3] Sefer ha-Meorot, Moed Katan, ed. Blau (New York, 1964), pp. 73-74 (to Moed Katan 20a). [4] For a great story about the Rogochover told by R. Menahem Mendel Schneerson, see Likutei Sihot, vol. 16, pp. 374-375. [5] Yeshiva University’s Gottesman Library also has a large archive of over 2500 letters and postcards sent to the Rogochover. This material was sent to the United States before World War II by the Rogochover’s daughter. I published a lengthy letter from this collection in my article on the dispute over the Frankfurt rabbinate. SeeMilin Havivin 3 (2007), pp 26-33. The Zaphnath Paneah Institute at YU no longer exists. When I look at old material from YU, I often come across things that are now only a memory. Here is something I think people might find interesting.

(Unfortunately, the picture I took is not so clear.) The Beit Midrash li-Gedolei Torah was the name of a kollel at YU in the 1940s and 1950s headed by R. Avigdor Cyperstein. I thank his daughter, Mrs. Naomi Gordon, for allowing me to go through his papers where I found the stationery with the name of the kollel. R. Gedaliah Dov Schwartz was actually a member of this kollel. See Ha-Pardes, Tevet 5751, p. 58 and Kislev 5752, p. 1. Today YU has a number of kollels, see here, but none with this name. Does anyone know when this kollel stopped functioning?

[6] Mi-Shibud li-Geulah mi-Pesah ad Shavuot (n.p., 1996), p. 87. [7] See his Masa Dumah, p. 4. [8] Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah, vol. 1, nos. 4, 74. The first responsum mistakenly has the place of authorship as London, when it should say Luban. The city name appears correctly in the second responsum, which was written on the same day as the first. See here. [9] See the Excursus where I discuss standing for Vayvarekh David. [10] Saying Vayvarekh David is itself only a minhag. See Tur, Orah Hayyim 51:7: ובתקון הגאונים כתוב יש נוהגים לומר ויברך דוד את ה’ [11] In Darkhei Moshe, Orah Hayyim 51 he writes: המנהג עכשיו לעמוד מויברך דוד עד תפראתך From his words we see that people only stood for the first half of Vayvarekh David. [12] There is a lot of confusion as to how to pronounce the in both the singular and plural ברכה word The first is pronouncedbirkat , as .ברכות and ברכת :construct ,The second is pronounced birkhot .כ there is a dagesh in the and is parallel to the ,כ as there is nodagesh in the (”my blessing“) ברכתי ,hilkhot . Interestingly– הלכות word does. I don’t ברכת even though כ does not have a dagesh in the think that there is any grammatical rule that can adequately are ברכה explain all this. We know how the words related to pronounced because they are attested to numerous times in Tanakh. does not appear in Tanakh, and the Yemenite הלכות The word tradition is actually to pronounce it ashilkot , with See here. When not quoting from Tanakh, the .כ a dagesh in the asbirkhat , as ברכת Yemenite tradition is also to pronounce in birkhat ha-mazon. See here. [13] It is not only historians who say this. See R. Yitzhak Yeshaya Weiss, Birkat Elisha (Bnei Brak, 2016), vol. 3, p. 37, and see also R. Shimon Szimonowitz, Meor Eifatekha, p. 4, who cites R. Jacob Schorr and R. Serayah Deblitsky. [14] A number of Ashkenazic rishonim quote a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud that speaks of a blessing on the Sabbath light, yet this is not found in any extant text and scholars agree that it is not an authentic Yerushalmi text. See the comprehensive discussion in R. Ratzon Arusi, “Birkat Hadlakat Ner shel Yom Tov,” Sinai 85 (1979), pp. 63ff. See also Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays (Cincinatti, 1951), p. 459 n. 98 and Sefer Ra’avyah, ed. Aptowitzer, vol. 1, p. 263 n. 10. [15] See Teshuvot ha-Rav Kafih le-Talmido Tamir Ratzon, ed. Itamar Cohen (Kiryat Ono, 2016), pp. 162-163, and R. Kafih’s commentary to Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:1, n. 1. [16] I use the word “candle”, rather than the plural, “candles”, as the practice of lighting two candles only originated later, in medieval Ashkenaz. See R. Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avoteinu Be-Yadenu: Shabbat Kodesh (Monsey, 2010), pp. 11ff. I was surprised to learn that R. Meir Soloveitchik’s daughters each lit a Shabbat candle and recited the blessing from the time they were three years old. See Da- Haziteih le-Rabbi Meir, vol. 1, p. 323. [17] In later years we find that some Karaites adopted the practice of lighting candles on Friday night. Se Dov Lipetz, “Ha-Karaim be-Lita,” in Yahadut Lita (Tel Aviv, 1959), vol. 1, p. 142 [18] Bayit Ne’eman 38 (25 Heshvan 5777), p. 3,Bayit Ne’eman 118 (10 Tamuz 5778), p. 2 n. 9. In She’elot u-Teshuvot Bayit Ne’eman, p. 190, he does not present this approach as absolute fact, but states that it is “nearly certain”. וקרוב לודאי שברכת נר שבת נתקנה בימי הגאונים להוציא מדעת הקראים

[19] Otzar Kol Minhagei Yeshurun (St. Louis, 1917), p. 232. [20] Dor Dor ve-Doreshav (Vilna, 1904), vol. 4, p. 97. Weiss points to other examples of practices that he suggests were a response to Karaites, such as counting theomer at night, רבי ישמעאל betrothing a woman with a ring, and reciting in the morning prayers. R. Judah Leib Maimon claims that אומר the practice of a Saturday night melaveh malka was instituted by the geonim in opposition to the Karaites, who saw the Sabbath as a difficult and depressing day, in contrast to traditional Jews who find it difficult to part with the Sabbath. See Sefer ha-Gra, ed. Maimon (Jerusalem, 1954), vol. 1, p. 80. [21] Rabbinic Essays, p. 460. He writes that the blessing was “probably intended as a more emphatic protest against the Karaites.” [22] “Berakhah Bilti Yeduah al Keriat Perek ‘Bameh Madlikin,’” Sinai 82 (1978), p. 217. [23] Rabbinic Essays, p. 459. See also Yehudah Muriel, Iyunim ba-Mikra (Tel Aviv, 1960), vol. 2, p. 131. [24] Commentary to Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:1, n. 1. [25] Hikrei Lev (Satmar, 1908), vol. 4, p. 84. [26] Ibid, pp. 84, 86ff. [27] Shimon Yosef Meler,Uvdot ve-Hanhagot mi-Beit Brisk (Jerusalem, 2000), vol. 4, p. 310.

The Satmar Rebbe and a Censored Mishnah Berurah, and R. Baruch Rabinovich of Munkács

The Satmar Rebbe and a Censored Mishnah Berurah, and R. Baruch Rabinovich of Munkács

Marc B. Shapiro

1. In my recent interview in Der Veker, available here, I said that I hope to discuss how the Satmar Rebbe was mistaken in identifying a Zionist censorship in the Mishnah Berurah.

In Ha-Maor, Elul 5716, p. 30, M. Abramson tells the following The .על זיוף המשנה ברורה story that appears under the heading Satmar Rebbe was away from home and asked his assistant, R. Joseph Ashkenazi (who is the source of the story), to bring him a book. Ashkenazi brought the first book that came to his hand. It was a Mishnah Berurah printed in Israel. After investigating the history of the printing of the Mishnah Berurah at the National Library of Israel, I concluded that the copy the Satmar Rebbe was given was published by Pardes in 1955 (one year before the event described). Here is the title page. Later the Rebbe returned the book to Ashkenazi and said that as far as he remembers, the language in section 156 of this copy of the Mishnah Berurah differs from what appears in other editions. Ashkenazi checked an older edition of the Mishnah Berurah and discovered that the Israeli edition had altered the original text.

The original Mishnah Berurah 156:4 reads:

מצוה על כל אדם לאהוב את כ”א מישראל כגופו שנא’ ואהבת לרעך כמוך וכו’ ודוקא רעך בתורה ומצוות אבל אדם רשע שראה אותו שעבר עבירה המפורסמת בישראל ולא קיבל תוכחה מצוה לשנאתו.

I have underlined the words that Abramson calls attention to. the Pardes ,לאהוב את כ”א מישראל :While the original text reads Abramson notes, “In this they .לאהוב את עמיתו edition has wanted to show their support for democracy, that one needs to love not just the Jews but also the Arabs.” The Pardes edition also omits the second series of words that I have underlined, which express sentiments that are not very tolerant of the irreligious,[1] as well as some other words.

Here is the uncensored page in the Mishnah Berurah. Here is the censored page in the Pardes edition. Upon looking again at the Abramson article, I see that I misremembered, as it does not actually say that the Satmar Rebbe attributed this censorship to the Zionist publisher. He simply noticed the problem in the Israeli edition and said that this Mishnah Berurah is not like the others he has seen. It is Abramson who explicitly blames the Zionists (although perhaps the Rebbe agreed with Abramson). Abramson sarcastically writes that apparently they also provide copies of the Mishnah Berurah “to the children of Mapai and Mapam,” and this explains why they altered and censored the text. Yet the truth is that what we have just seen has nothing to do with the Israeli publisher, Pardes. I found the same censorship in a Mishnah Berurah that appeared in Warsaw in 1895, and interestingly, it is this very edition that is found on hebrewbooks.org here. In other words, the changes we have seen were inserted under Czarist rule, and the Israeli publisher simply reprinted a copy of the Mishnah Berurah without realizing that it was a censored version.[2]

I know of another example where the altering of a text was blamed on the Zionists, and this time the one doing the blaming was a Mizrachi rabbi, R. Avigdor Cyperstein. In the Mossad ha-Rav Kook Archive of Religious Zionism there is a letter from R. Cyperstein to Dr. Yitzhak Rafael dated May 14, 1967. The relevant section reads as follows: ידידי היקר – אני רוצה לזכות אותך בזכות הרבים, ובטח לא תחמיץ את המצווה הזו: כעת בכל העולם נפוצים הסידורים תוצרת הארץ הוצאת “בית רפאל”, ת”א – “סדור התפלה השלם” – והנה מצאתי בסידור זה דבר נורא: במעמדות של יום הששי מובא הגמ’ מנחות מד. המעשה באדם אחד שהי’ זהיר במצוות ציצית וכו’ ושם כתוב “באה לבית מדרשו של ר’ חייא, אמרה לו רבי צוה עלי ויעשוני גיורת וכו’, – והמולי”ם הללו העיזו לשלוח יד בגירסת הגמ’, ובמקום ויעשוני גיורת – השליכו את הגיורת החוצה, והכניסו במקומה “עברית” . . . והמרחק- התהום בין גיורת לעברית – אין צורך לבאר, וגם כוונתם הטרופה, בוקעה מזה, ומעלה סרחון, בכי’ לדורות. דומני שאין מי שהוא שהעיז לכבוש את המלכה בבית וכל ישראל – מתפללים מסידור זה, וע”כ מצווה לפרסם זה ברבים, ולתקן בהוצאות החדשות.

It is hard to know whether what R. Cyperstein refers to was indeed a Zionist inspired alteration. I say this because the is also attested to in a few sources ויעשוני עברית version that pre-date Zionism. I think it is more likely that the publisher just assumed that this is a more authentic reading. Since I have been discussing the Satmar Rebbe, here is as good a place as any to note that contrary to popular belief, the name Satmar does not come from St. Mary. The original meaning seems to be a personal name, and in popular etymology the word came to mean “great village.”[3] Yet even in the Satmar community some believe that the word comes from St. Mary, and because of this they pronounce it as “Sakmar”. In pre-war Hungary this pronunciation was common among many Orthodox Jews, not only Satmar hasidim.[4] For one example of this, here is Samuel Noah Gottlieb’s entry on Satmar in his rabbinic encyclopedia, Ohalei Shem (Pinsk, 1912), p. 425. As you can see, while “Szatmar” appears in the vernacular, in the Hebrew the city is spelled “Sakmar”. There are many more such examples. This avoidance of saying the word “Satmar” is similar to the way Jews referred in Hebrew and Yiddish to the Austrian town Deutschkreutz. Unlike the case with Satmar, when it came to Deutschkreutz the universal Jewish name was Tzeilem (Kreutz=cross=tzelem). On the other hand, there was a significant Jewish community in the Lithuanian city of Mariampole, whose name comes from Mary. Yet I am not aware of anyone who avoided saying the name of this city. Shimon Steinmetz emailed me as follows: We might also note other cities with Christian-y names, like Kristianpol. Kristianpoler was a name used even by rabbis, cf. Rabbi Yechiel Kristianpoler, and his son Rabbi Meir. In addition, the Lithuanian town Kalvarija, which has a very Christian association, Jews used it without any issue. On the other hand, the Jews called St Petersburg, “Petersburg,” without the “St.”

One other point about Satmar: In a lecture I mentioned that one of the old-time American rabbis met with the Satmar Rebbe and concluded that when it came to the State of Israel, you simply could not speak to him about it. He was like a shoteh le-davar ehad when it came to this in that no matter how much you tried to convince him otherwise, he refused to listen to reason. Someone asked me which rabbi said this. It was R. Ephraim Jolles of Philadelphia (as I heard from a family member). I don’t think his formulation is too harsh, as anyone who has read the Satmar Rebbe’s writings can attest. It does not bother me if he or anyone else wants to be an anti- Zionist. However, the anti-Zionist rhetoric found in the Satmar Rebbe’s writings, and those of his successors, is often more extreme than what we find among the pro-Palestinian groups. Take a look at this passage from Va-Yoel Moshe, p. 11.

אם נקח כל פירצות הדור והעבירות המרובות הנעשות בכל העולם וישימו אותם בכף מאזנים אחת, ומדינה הציונית בכף מאזנים השני’, [המדינה הציונית] תכריע את הכל, שהוא השורש פורה ראש ולענה של אבי אבות הטומאה שבכל אבות הנזיקין שבכל העולם כולו, והן המה המטמאים את כל העולם כולו.

By what logic can one claim that such an outrageous passage would be anti-Semitic if said by Mahmoud Abbas, Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, or Max Blumenthal, but not so if the very same thing is said in Satmar? If anyone wants to see the results of this rhetoric, here are two videos with kids from Satmar. In this one the children are being taught that the Zionists started World War II and to hope for the destruction of the State of Israel.

In this video children were told that Netanyahu was in the car and they were to throw eggs at it.

It is very painful to see how children are being indoctrinated with such hatred. Again I ask, if such a video surfaced from a leftist camp, there would be no hesitation in labeling it anti-Semitic. So why are people hesitant to conclude that Satmar is also involved in spreading anti-Semitism?

The general assumption is that the Satmar Rebbe hated Zionism and the State of Israel so much, that he was inclined to believe even the most far-out anti-Semitic canards against the State. I have always found this difficult to believe. Say what you will about the Rebbe, there is no denying that he was very intelligent. Thus, I have a hard time accepting that he could have really believed in Zionist control of the media and other anti-Semitic tropes found in his polemical writings. In other words, I think it is more likely that he did not believe in any of these things but said them anyway in order to convince his followers not to give up the fight against Zionism, a fight that had been abandoned by so many former anti-Zionists after the Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. In such a battle it was necessary to turn Israel not only into something bad, but actually the worst sin imaginable.

R. Nahum Abraham, a Satmar hasid and prolific author, has recently written that the Satmar Rebbe would deny things that he knew were true. He regarded his denials as “necessary lies,” in order to prevent people from being led in the wrong direction.[5] If the Rebbe thought that it was permissible to deny the truth of certain hasidic stories in order to prevent his followers from being influenced by them, isn’t it possible that he would exaggerate the evils of the State of Israel in order to best indoctrinate his followers with an anti-Zionist perspective? This approach also would explain a big problem that no one has been able to adequately account for. How was the Satmar Rebbe able to have friendly and respectful relationships with people who, based on what he writes, he should have regarded as completely out of the fold due to their involvement with the State of Israel? This includes even men like R. Aharon Kotler who supported voting in the Israeli elections, which the Satmar Rebbe claimed is “the most severe prohibition in the entire Torah.”[6] Yet we know that the Satmar Rebbe respected R. Aharon and others who had a very different perspective.[7] Can’t this be seen as evidence that there is a good deal of ideologically-driven exaggeration in the Satmar Rebbe’s writings, and that not everything he says really reflects his actual views? After all, if he really thought that voting in the elections was the most severe prohibition in the Torah and the State of Israel was completely destroying Judaism, would he still be able to be on good terms with rabbis who instructed their followers to vote and be part of the State?

2. Since I mentioned Munkács in this post, let me return to another recent post here where I discussed R. Baruch Rabinovich, the son-in-law of R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira and his successor as Munkácser Rebbe. When I wrote the post I was unaware of the fact that R. Baruch’s grandson, R. Yosef Rabinovich, recently published Ner Baruch, which is a collection of Torah writings and letters from R. Baruch. He includes in the volume the haskamot written by R. Baruch. I examined new printings of the volumes with haskamot that I was unaware of and found that R. Baruch’s haskamah to the first edition of R. Yitzhak Adler, Seder Shanah ha-Aharonah (Munkács, 1937) was deleted in subsequent printings. The same thing happened with R. Baruch’s haskamah to R. Judah Zvi Lustig’s Yedei Sofer (Debrecen, 1938). Here is how the page with the haskamot looks in the original printing. Here is how the page with the haskamot looks in the reprint, where R. Baruch’s haskamah has been deleted. Another point about R. Baruch: In 1946 he tried to become chief rabbi of Tel Aviv but lost out to R. Isser Yehudah Unterman. This is discussed in Samuel Heilman’s Who Will Lead Us? From a letter that appears in the archive of R. Isaac Herzog, and was sent to an unknown rabbi, we see that in 1950 R. Baruch was also interested in becoming av beit din in Tel Aviv. This information is, to the best of my knowledge, not recorded anywhere else. In this letter, which I found here (a site that contains more interesting information and pictures about R. Baruch) we that R. Herzog, R. Unterman, and R. Yaakov Moshe Toledano were strongly opposed to R. Baruch receiving this appointment. Although the reason for this opposition is not mentioned, it is perhaps because they felt it was an abomination that someone from the anti-Zionist Munkács dynasty should have such a position in the State of Israel. However, as I have mentioned in my previous post, it is doubtful that R. Baruch ever really shared his father-in-law’s strong anti- Zionism. It is possible that the anti-Zionist statements he made in the pre-war years might not have reflected his actual beliefs but were due to his position as rebbe. That is, as the successor of R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira he felt that he had to make such statements. It is also the case that had he not continued his father-in-law’s anti-Zionist stance he would not have retained much of a following in Munkács.

When R. Baruch wanted to become chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, a letter in opposition to this was published by Chaim Kugel, head of the Holon Municipal Council: Is it conceivable that this man . . . who hounded Zionism and Zionists . . . who loyally continued the line of the Munkács court, which cursed and banned any Jew who pronounced the word Zion on his lips . . . is it conceivable that this man will appear as a representative and moral leader in the first Hebrew city, and be a guide to its residents and Zionists?[8]

In those days it was obvious that positions of chief rabbis of important cities would go to Zionist rabbis. Here, for example, is a letter to R. Unterman from David Zvi Pinkas, an important Mizrachi figure and signatory of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.[9] Note how Pinkas tells R. Unterman that the Mizrachi expects him to follow the Mizrachi approach in everything he does. If R. Unterman could not commit to this, then Pinkas would have found another rabbi who could. In my earlier post I neglected to mention R. Baruch’s Hashav Nevonim that appeared in 2016. This book is full of interesting material, and the more I read from R. Baruch, the more impressed I am. He really was a fascinating figure in so many ways. There is a good deal I can say about Hashav Nevonim, but let me just call attention to the first essay that appears in the book, focused on conversion. Conversion is a matter often in the news. I have said on numerous occasions that what currently passes as the standard approach to conversion was not the case at all in previous years. To begin with, among the rabbis there were different understandings of what kabbalat ha-mitzvot entailed, and the currently accepted view that a prospective convert must commit to become fully halakhically observant, as practiced today in Orthodox communities, was not the view of many, and perhaps not even the view of most. The notion that a conversion could be annulled after the fact was hardly ever put into practice, although even this is found on occasion and R. Baruch cites some authorities who speak about this very point. Thus, it is not, as has often been alleged, a modern haredi idea with no historical basis although, as mentioned, it was very rare.

After going through the various views on conversion, R. Baruch concludes as follows (p. 47).

מנהג העולם נראה כמקבל דיעה זו, וכל מי שנתגייר, בין ששומר מצוות, ובין שחוזר ועובר עבירות, דינו כישראל, כל שקיבל עצמו עול מצות עם גירותו.

I have underlined the words which are not currently accepted by many (most?) conversion courts and which are at the heart of the controversy regarding voiding conversions. Today, the assumption of many conversion courts is that if someone who converts is later seen violating halakhah in a serious way, we can assume that this person never really accepted the mitzvot at the conversion, and the conversion is therefore not valid. It is this argument which was hardly ever put into practice in previous years and now appears to be quite common, so much so that converts claim to feel that their conversions are always “on condition,” namely, that even many years after converting there is the possibility that the conversion will be declared invalid because of a lack of proper kabbalat ha-mitzvot. On pp. 27-28, R. Baruch calls attention to the novel view of R. Isaac Benjamin Wolf, author of Nahalat Binyamin (Amsterdam, 1682), a book reprinted a number of times and which carries the haskamah by R. Jacob Sasportas. Here is the title page.

This refers to .מדינת מרק R. Isaac is described as rabbi of the German county of Mark, about which seehere .

Here is page 89a in Nahalat Binyanim According to R. Isaac, in places such as Spain and Portugal, where one could not practice Judaism openly, if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman, and the woman chooses to practice Judaism, both she and her children are regarded as Jewish. How can she be Jewish when she never immersed in the mikveh and there was no beit din to preside over the conversion? R. Isaac says that there is no obligation to immerse in the mikveh when there is danger (as there would be in a place with the Inquisition looking to find Crypto-Jews). Although he does not elaborate, it is obvious that according to R. Isaac kabbalat ha-mitzvot in front of a beit din is not an absolute requirement. In other words, he holds that in a she’at ha- dehak one can convert on one’s own, without a beit din.

This is a fascinating position that is at odds with accepted halakhah, so much so that most people won’t even believe that such a position is possible. R. Baruch is not able to cite anyone who agrees with it. The position of Nahalat Binyamim is discussed by R. Eliezer Waldenberg, who not surprisingly completely rejects it.[10] However, he does cite a medieval view that has some similarity to Nahalat Binyamim:

היה מקום להביא סמוכין לזה משיטת האביאסף שהובא במרדכי ביבמות סו”פ החולץ שמפרש דברי הגמ’ שם שאומרת מי לא טבלה לנדותה שמשמע דבדיעבד הוי גר גמור גם בטבילה בלי ג’.

Unlike R. Waldenberg, R. Hayyim Amsalem, Zera Yisrael, p. 290, does not reject Nahalat Binyamin out of hand. Instead he writes:

חזו דברי גאון קדמון זה לאיצטרופי, ולדון להקל בבני האנוסים ובבני יהודים לענין גיורם וחזרתם לדת, שכל שימולו ויטבלו לשם יהדות בהודעת מקצת מצוות כהלכה, סגי להו אף לכתחילה, אע”פ שאנחנו לא יודעים מה שהיה אח”כ לענין קיום המצוות, וזה אתי אפי’ למ”ד קבלת מצוות מעכבת.

See also Jacob Sofer, Sipurei Yaakov (Lvov, 1913), vol. 2, pp. 7ff. (no. 42), for a lengthy story starring the Maharal. The tale is obviously fictional, but of importance for our purposes is that the story, reported in a hasidic text, tells of a woman who ran away from her non-Jewish husband and married a Jewish man, had children, and was a righteous woman. However, this woman never converted with a beit din, and yet on p. 8a it specifically states that she and her children are to be regarded as Jewish. R. Nahum Abraham points to this as an example of an anti-halakhic hasidic story that cannot be true.[11] Finally, Nahmanides in his commentary to Yevamot 45b has an interesting view and I do not know if it is accepted.

ואיפשר לומר דגבי קבלת מצוות צריך שלשה אפילו בדיעבד דמשפט כתיב ביה מה התם שנים שדנו אין דיניהן דין אף כאן אינו גר אפילו בדיעבד, אבל מי שהודיעוהו מקצת ענשן של מצות ומתן שכרן של מצות וקיבל עליו בב”ד לטבול ולמול, אם הלך ומל וטבל שלא בפני ב”ד הרי זה כשר ולא פסלינן לזרעיה

3. There are many new books to speak about. One of them is Chaim I. Waxman, Social Change and Halakhic Evolution in American Orthodoxy. The content of the book can be seen from the title. I will be reviewing this book in an academic journal, so I do not need to speak about it here. I would, however, like to call attention to one point that will not be mentioned in my review. Chapter 5 is titled “Tensions Within Modern Orthodoxy.” Not surprisingly, it deals with women rabbis. On pp. 109-110, Waxman refers to R. Jeremy Wieder’s view on the matter (the name is misspelled “Weider”). He quotes from an article in the Yeshiva University Commentator, which summarizes R. Wieder’s position as follows: “[I]n light of the success of the yoetzet halacha program in increasing overall observance in the communities that he has observed, it may be very beneficial to have women rabbis.”

I was quite surprised to see such a liberal position expressed by a YU Rosh Yeshiva, and I checked the source which appears here. R. Wieder is indeed quoted saying, among other things, that there is no binding tradition on the matter of women rabbis since the issue of women in leadership positions is a new question, thus preventing the development of a “stream of Jewish tradition.” However, when I read the article I did not find anything about how it may be “beneficial to have women rabbis.” I then noticed the following at the beginning of the article. “Editor’s Note: This article has been edited to more precisely convey the opinions represented.” In this case, I think the meaning of “more precisely convey” is that what originally appeared was altered (presumably at R. Wieder’s request) in order to prevent controversy. Yet even with the removal of R. Wieder’s view that it may be “beneficial to have women rabbis,” the current text of the article does not alter the substance of R. Wieder’s opinion. Thus, we find the following: Lastly, Rabbi Wieder talked about the issue from a philosophical standpoint. He argued that expanding the pool of rabbinic students could lead to an increase in qualified rabbinic candidates. Rabbi Wieder added that he has observed the yoetzet halacha program increase overall halachic observance in the communities it serves and he expressed his optimism that women rabbis could generate similar improvement.

These words are certainly in opposition to the OU’s recent statement on women and religious leadership which is available here.

The question I have been asked a few times is if in the current political climate it is possible for a rabbi at a mainstream Modern Orthodox synagogue, or a teacher at a mainstream Modern Orthodox school, to feel free to express support for the ordination of women. Would such a rabbi or teacher risk censure from his colleagues or even the possibility of losing his job? The answer to these questions will determine if we are dealing with a real wedge issue (as I think we are).

Another new book is R. Bezalel Naor’s Shod Melakhim. R. Naor is well known as an outstanding interpreter of R. Kook. His great knowledge of the entire scope of Jewish thought (not just R. Kook) is apparent to anyone who examines his writings. Yet I do not know how many are aware of R. Naor’s achievements when it comes to rabbinic literature. This latest book is a collection of R. Naor’s studies on various halakhot in the Mishneh Torah. As part of R. Naor’s explication of these halakhot, he offers the reader wide-ranging enlightening discussions using numerous sources, both traditional and academic. For those who can appreciate the synthesis of the traditional and the academic approaches to the study of Maimonides, R. Naor’s new book is a real treat.

In the past I have spoken about the late R. Mordechai Spielman’s great work on the Zohar, Tiferet Zvi. The seventh volume of Tiferet Zvi has recently appeared, and can even be purchased on Amazon. Anyone who is interested in how the Zohar has been interpreted, and the impact of the Zohar on later rabbinic literature, will benefit greatly from of R. Spielman’s writings.

A new book (over 600 pages) by Benjamin Brown has appeared. It focuses on the Karlin hasidic dynasty. When I received the book in the mail, the first thought that came to my head is that Brown is a phenomenon. There is no other way to put it. It is not just the quantity of his literary output that is astounding, but also the quality, as everything he writes is worth reading. ______

[1] Regarding the Hafetz Hayyim’s view of the non-religious, which is very much at odds with current approaches in the Lithuanian yeshiva world (at least in America), see Benjamin Brown, “Ha-‘Ba’al Bayit’: R. Yisrael Meir ha-Kohen, he-‘Hafetz Hayyim,’” in Brown and Nissim Leon, eds., Ha-Gedolim (Jerusalem, 2017), pp. 127ff. Brown also shows that in a few letters the Hafetz Hayyim adopts a more moderate perspective. [2] In future posts I hope to say a good deal more about the Satmar Rebbe’s writings. For now, let me just respond to someone who emailed me and compared R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira, the Munkácser Rebbe, to the Satmar Rebbe. It is true that they are similar in terms of their strong opposition to Zionism, and the Satmar Rebbe can be seen as the Munkácser Rebbe’s successor in this matter. However, in terms of their scholarly approach, they are quite different, as the Satmar Rebbe did not have the Munkácser’s critical sense. In fact, I was quite surprised to learn that the Satmar Rebbe accepted as authentic the forged anti-Zionist letters published by Chaim Bloch in his three volume Dovev Siftei Yeshenim. See R. Dov Schwartz, Meshiv Devarim (New York, 2011), pp. 140-141. [3] See here. appearing סאקמאר Shimon Steinmetz called my attention to [4] as the name of the city as early as 1859 in R. Hayyim Meir Ze’ev ha-Kohen, Sha’arei Hayyim (Pressburg 1859), in the list of subscribers at the beginning of the book. (You can find this on Google books, but the version of the book on hebrewbooks.org is missing these pages, as well as other pages.) This shows that referring to the city as “Sakmar” was already common. Steinmetz also called my attention to the same thing in the list of subscribers found at the end of R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Kise Rahamim (Ungvar, 1870). In this case, you can see the subscribers in the copy on hebrewbooks.org, but it has been removed from the copy on Otzar ha-Chochmah. If this was removed intentionally, on the assumption that it is not really part of the sefer, it is a big problem, as the subscriber information can be of great historical importance. It is vital that both hebrewbooks.org and Otzar ha-Chochmah scan books in their entirety, without making any changes whatsoever. R. Yoel Teitelbaum used the term Satmar all the time, and it was on his stationery, but I did find a number of places where See e.g., his .סאקמיר and סאקמער he wrote Sakmar, spelled approbations to R. Abraham Hayyim Reinman, Va-Yetze Perah (Satmar, 1940), R. Asher Steinmetz, Mikveh Yisrael ha-Shem (Jerusalem, 1961), and his letter in Divrei Yoel: Mikhtavim (Brooklyn, 1981), vol. 2, p. 81. See also Esther Farbstein, Be-Seter ha-Madregah (Jerusalem, 2013), p. 862, for a 1949 letter from Budapest to R. Yoel in which the word Sakmar is used. Shimon Steinmetz wrote to me as follows:

I think you can see by his [R. Yoel’s] correct spelling in Latin letters that he didn’t take it seriously, and perhaps not too many Jews did. After all, R. Joel Teitelbaum himself, who I think most people would consider fairly zealous, did not insist or use it very much. . . . This tells me that when people did call it Sakmar, most of them were probably just calling it that because it was already what Jews called it. Perhaps it was even a sly joke to begin with.

[5] Peti Ya’amin le-Khol Davar (n.p., 2017), p. 31 [6] Divrei Yoel, Mikhtavim, no. 90. [7] In a future post I will publish a letter I received from Moshe Beck dealing with this point. Beck is the chief rabbi of the U.S. Neturei Karta. [8] Translation in Heilman, Who Will Lead Us?, p. 45. [9] The letter is found in the Israel State Archives, David .פZvi Pinkas collection, 3070/15- [10] Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 17, no. 42:11. [11] Heikhal ha-Besht 18 (Nisan 5767), p. 18. For an Arabic version of this story, see Bayit Neeman 96 (26 Tevet 5776), pp. 4-5.

China and the Answer to the Last Quiz

China and the Answer to the Last Quiz Marc B. Shapiro I recently returned from China and one of my friends asked me if during my time there I found anything of relevance to the Seforim Blog. He did not mean the comment seriously, but in fact I did find something. Whenever I am in synagogues I make a point of examining their collection of books, as you never know what you might come across. In Beijing I was at the fabulous Chabad House and I found something that will be of interest to Seforim Blog readers. Before getting to that I need to mention that my time in Beijing was made doubly special as I was able to spend Shabbat with Rabbi Dr. Dror Fixler. In addition to being an outstanding award-winning scientist, he is also a fine Judaic scholar. Among his important publications are new translations from the Arabic of Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah to tractates Berakhot, Peah, and Avodah Zarah. Each volume is accompanied by Fixler’s learned notes. Fixler has also published numerous articles on various Torah themes, including on practical halakhic matters. See here. Fixler is a student of R. Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch, and I used some of the time we were together to clarify the details of R. Rabinovitch’s position that there is no halakhic prohibition in using an electronic key card on Shabbat,[1] or in walking through a door that opens electronically, or even using an electronic faucet where the water comes out when you put your hand under it. Without getting into the halakhic details, I think one thing is sure, namely, that the future will bring more such lenient decisions in this area. The changing circumstances of modern life will create enormous pressure for lenient decisions, as modern technology which helps us in so many ways also creates many problems regarding Shabbat. For example, how long until it will be impossible to access an apartment building in New York and other big cities without using a key card? The day is probably coming when private apartment doors will also use key cards, not to mention numerous other such Shabbat-problematic technological advances that will be unavoidable aspects of life in the future. Therefore, I believe that some future poskim will return to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s position that if there is no creation of heat or light, then technically there is no violation of Shabbat. Getting back to the matter of seforim, while looking through the books at the Chabad House I saw Birkat Yadi by R. Joseph Judah Dana. I had never before seen this book and it is not found on Otzar ha- Chochmah. Pasted on the inside cover is the following. (Unfortunately, the pictures I took came out blue on my phone.) The book the editor, Prof. Joseph Dana, is referring to isTzofeh Penei Damesek. Here is the title page. Without getting into the accusation of plagiarism, there is something that is noteworthy about Tzofeh Penei Damesek, namely, that included among the approbations from great rabbis is a lengthy letter from Professor José Faur. Let me share one other interesting thing about my recent trip to Beijing. It isn’t related to seforim but was of great interest to my colleagues at the University of Scranton, which is a Jesuit university. The Friday night before arriving in Beijing I was in Hong Kong and learned that one of the people I was talking to at dinner shared my interest in Matteo Ricci (1552-1610), the famous Jesuit missionary to China. This man told me that years before he had visited Ricci’s grave and that it was worthwhile for me go see it. There is actually a Jewish connection here, for Ricci was asked if he would take over the position of rabbi of the Kaifeng Jewish community, but on the condition that he give up eating pork.[2] (Obviously the Jews of Kaifeng were not the most learned.) I checked online and saw that Ricci’s grave, which is found in the first Christian cemetery in China, was indeed a site that some tourists had written about. However, in recent years it had become much harder to visit without being part of an organized group and arranging the visit ahead of time. The fact that the small cemetery is found on the grounds of a Communist party school is no doubt the reason for this. I was thus unsure whether they would allow me in, but my guide was able to convince them that I was harmless. If it were only so easy to get into some of the old Jewish cemeteries I have attempted to visit. Here is the grave and the plaque put up nearby.

Concerning China there is a lot more I have to say, and I hope to publish a manuscript from a few hundred years ago regarding the Jews of China. For now, let me just note the following which will be of particular interest to Seforim Blog readers: There are two works of responsa that were published by rabbis who served in China. (I am not including Hong Kong which I will return to in a future post.) The first is R. Elijah Hazan’s Yedei Eliyahu. Here is the title page of volume 1. R. Hazan published three volumes in total. What makes his responsa very unusual, if not unique, is that the text is published complete with vowels. I don’t think I have ever seen another responsa collection published with vowels. Here is a sample page. As R. Hazan explains in the introduction, he was the hazan in the Ohel Leah Synagogue in Hong Kong for fourteen years. Following this, for ten years he served as hazan at the Ohel Rachel Synagogue in Shanghai. Both of these synagogues still exist, but Ohel Rachel is now part of the Shanghai Educational Ministry and tourists are not permitted entry. The second work of responsa by a rabbi in China is R. Aaron Moses Kiseleff’s Mishberei Yam. Here is the title page. This book is significant not only because the author lived in China, but also because the book itself was printed in China in 1926, in the city of Harbin. Because of its proximity to Russia, Harbin attracted many Russian Jews and they were the ones who brought R. Kiseleff there. In the 1920s the Jewish population of Harbin was over 20,000.[3] As late as the 1940s there still was a Jewish day school in Harbin.[4] Not long ago I saw that R. Gedaliah Felder, Yesodei Yeshurun: Shabbat, vol. 2, p. 216, refers to R. Kiseleff’sMishberei Yam, and in a footnote writes:[5] הספר הזה חשוב מאד כי זה הספר היחידי של הלכה שנדפס ברוסיא אחרי המהפכה, נדפס בשנת תרפ”ו. No doubt because he saw the Russian writing on the title page of Mishberei Yam, R. Felder mistakenly assumed that Harbin is in Russia. He thus concluded falsely that Mishberei Yam is the only book on halakhah published in the Soviet Union. While this is incorrect, had he known the truth he could have kept the footnote but changed it to say that Mishberei Yam is important since it is the only original book on halakhah published in China. R. Kiseleff served as rabbi in Harbin from 1913 until his death in 1949. After his death, his widow moved to Israel and published R. Kiseleff’s derashot, Imrei Shefer. Here is the title page which refers to R. Kiseleff as the chief rabbi of the Far East. As explained in the introduction, R. Kiseleff was actually given this title in 1937 at a gathering of Far East Jewish communities.[6] Herman Dicker writes as follows:[7] Rabbi Kiseleff was a great Talmudic scholar who first came to Harbin when he was in his forties. He was born in Sores, Russia, in 1866 and as a child excelled in Jewish studies. He soon became known as the Vietker Ilui (wonder child), taking his name from the Yeshiva he attended as a youth. At sixteen, he transferred to the Yeshiva of Minsk, and, two years later, moved over to the Talmudic Center of Volozhin, where he studied with the famed Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik. . . . Rabbi Kiseleff was ordained by Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzenski and then served as the rabbi of Borisoff from 1900-1913. In his final year at Borisoff, in 1913, Rabbi Kiseleff was called to Harbin and he accepted the post as spiritual head there at the gentle urging of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Within a short period of time, Rabbi Kiseleff won the love and admiration of the entire community and achieved a great deal in raising the spiritual level of this remote Jewish congregation. It was, therefore, fitting that in 1937 he was elected, unanimously, as Chief Rabbi by the General Conference of the Far Eastern Jewish Communities. . . . In 1931, he published Nationalism and Judaism, a Russian-language volume of sermons and lectures on the significance of Judaism. . . . Rabbi Kiseleff enjoyed the friendship of all the religious and intellectual leaders of Manchuria, without regard to their nationality or faith, for they all admired him as a person and respected his vast knowledge in various areas of academic learning. At one time, he debated the “Merchant of Venice” and the image of Shylock with three university professors and to this day scores of men and women remember his brilliance and eloquence on that occasion. There is a good deal of interesting material in R. Kiseleff’s Mishberei Yam, and let me call attention to just a few things. In no. 15, R. Kiseleff rules that if there is a non-Jew who wants to convert but the doctors tell him that it is dangerous for him to be circumcised, he still cannot be converted without a circumcision. In this responsum, R. Kiseleff also writes about how rabbis should avoid converting people who are not serious about being good Jews (although he assumes, as most rabbis did until recent years, that a conversion with such people would still be validex post facto). ובכלל עלינו להתרחק בכל האפשר לקבל גרים כאלו שידוע שרוב הגרים הבאים להתגייר בימינו לא משום אהבתם לדת ישראל באמת רק על הרוב סבות אחרות בדבר משום אשה או דומה לזה ואף שמלמדים אותם לומר בפני ב”ד שאוהבים את דת ישראל ומטעמים ידועים אין אנו דוחים אותם שהרי בדיעבד גם בכה”ג הוי גר, אבל גרים כאלו יותר נוח לנו שאם נמצא אמתלא שלא לקבלם מהראוי להתרחק מזה, דאם בגרים אמתים אמרו חז”ל שקשים לישראל כספחת מה נענה לגרים גרורים כאלו שאין לבם לשמים כלל. In no. 19 he discusses if a married woman becomes insane and has a child with someone other than her husband, if the child is a mamzer. In no. 28 he responds to a rabbi in a Far East Russian community in which there were no Sabbath observant people other than the rabbi’s family. This created problems when it came to writing a get as one needs kosher witnesses and also thesofer cannot be a Sabbath violator. R. Kiseleff argues that since everyone in the town violates Shabbat, these people are not included under the halakhic definition of a “public Sabbath violator,” which means that one violates Shabbat in front of ten observant Jews. Therefore, none of the many gittin arranged by the questioning rabbi’s predecessor are to be regarded as pasul. At the end of his responsum, R. Kiseleff notes that in Siberia there is a big problem when it comes to gittin, as many places have no rabbi and the local shochet arranges the get. Needless to say, these shochetim were often not learned at all in this matter, and this could create major halakhic complications. R. Kiseleff therefore suggested that no one should be authorized to slaughter in Siberia until he learns the laws ofgittin and is given an authorization to arrange gittin. In nos. 29-30 he deals with a case of a man who gave aget and afterwards claimed that he was forced to do so, as he was beaten and the people beating him said that if he doesn’t give the get they will kill him. R. Kiseleff writes that the get is valid as the man would not have taken the threat seriously. In support of his assumption, he cites R. Moses Isserles who states with reference to a different case that Jews who threaten to kill another Jew are only trying to scare him, “as Jews are not murderers.”[8] R. Kiseleff sent his responsum to R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk, and the latter disagreed with R. Kiseleff. R. Meir Simhah argued that contemporary “wild” young Jews are indeed capable of killing someone, and thus when threatened by them the man being pressured to authorize the get certainly would have taken this seriously. דבחורי ישראל הפרוצים בזמנינו חשידי גם אשפ”ד Here is another story about Harbin told by R. David Abraham Mandelbaum. In 1943 his father and his friend, both yeshiva students in Shanghai, came to Harbin where they visited the university. While there, and presumably in the library, they found on one of the tables a Sefat Emet on Kodashim. The two students were very surprised, since how did this book end up in such a far-away place? They grabbed the book and quickly exited.[9] פתאום צדו עינים ספר קודש, המונח על אחד השולחנות. הבחורים המופתעים ניגשו ופתחו וגילו להפתעתם, שזהו הספר הק’ “שפת אמת” על סדר קדשים. התדהמה היתה עצומה, איך הגיע ספר קדוש זה למקום נידח, בעיר חארבין שבסין הרחוקה?! אפס, הם לא חשבו הרבה, שמו את הספר באמתחתם, והסתלקו חיש מהר מן המקום כמוצאי שלל רב. The story as told is quite shocking to me and I am surprised that it was reported, for how was this not thievery? Presumably, the university acquired the book from one of the local Jews who donated it. Or perhaps at the time the yeshiva students were visiting the man who was studying the book had gone out to the restroom or he had left the book there from a previous visit. If such was the case, when the man returned he would have been very upset to find that his book was taken. It appears that the two yeshiva students simply felt that they had a right to take the book, as it did not belong in a Chinese institution. This reminds me of how many years ago I walked into the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary and saw that they had installed an anti- theft system to prevent anyone from removing a book without it being checked out. Upon inquiring I was told that this was necessary as some people thought it was OK to take books from the library, as they felt that they were “liberating” the books from the clutches of those who had no right to them, that is, the Conservatives. I never took that claim seriously and always assumed that a thief is a thief, and the people stealing the books – no matter how big their kippot or how long their beards – did not have any religious justification worked out. Subsequent experiences have shown me that these sorts of thieves will steal from anyone if given the chance, even if it means pretending to be kollel students. (I won’t elaborate further, but some European readers will know what I am referring to). But in the case from Harbin, it seems obvious that the reason for taking the book was precisely because the yeshiva students felt that there was no reason for the Sefat Emet to be in a Chinese institution. As mentioned already, I do not see how this can be justified halakhically, as we are not talking about a Jewish book that was, for example, confiscated by the government for anti-Semitic reasons.[10] After the yeshiva students returned to Shanghai with the Sefat Emet, it was then reprinted there. Here is the title page.

They also sent a copy of the book to R. Kiseleff, and here is the letter that accompanied the book.[11] Interestingly, the copy of Sefat Emet that they used to reprint the book was missing some words. They therefore added by hand what they thought were the missing words. The following appears in R. David Abraham Mandelbaum, Giborei ha-Hayil, vol. 2, p. 107. As is well known, when the Mir yeshiva reached Japan there was a lot of confusion about when to observe Shabbat and especially the upcoming Yom Kippur. Although there was already a local community there that observed Shabbat on Saturday, the Hazon Ish had informed the yeshiva that they must observe Shabbat on Sunday. R. Yehezkel Levenstein, the mashgiach of the Mir yeshiva, wrote to R. Kiseleff asking him specifically what to do about Yom Kippur, and he included a copy of the Hazon Ish’s letter explaining his reasoning. It is interesting that even after receiving the Hazon Ish’s letter R. Levenstein felt the need to consult with R Kiseleff, who was, as we have seen, regarded as the mara de-atra of the Far East.[12] R. Kiseleff did not accept the Hazon Ish’s position. He told R. Levenstein that the question of Yom Kippur is no different than Shabbat, and they should keep the day that is currently being kept. R. Kiseleff was particularly worried that moving the Shabbat to Sunday, when it had previously been observed on Saturday, could lead to a lessening of Shabbat observance among the general Jewish population: ורע עלי המעשה ששמעתי שמקצת מן הפליטים בקאבע קראו בתורה ביום א’ והתפללו תפלת שבת, ביחוד היא דרושה זהירות מרובה בענין זה בתבל כו’. ועתה כאשר נמצאו חרדים לדבר ד’ דוחים את השבת ליום א’ חג הנוצרים, יקל ענין שבת בעיניהם לגמרי, ויאמרו התירו פרושים את הדבר, ויצא מזה מכשול גדול אשר קשה יהי’ לתקן. לכן נלך מדרך זה חדש כזה אסור מן התורה בכל מקום . . . וכל המשנה ידו על התחתונה. R. Aryeh Leib Malin also wrote to R. Kiseleff, and R. Kiseleff replied to him saying the same thing and sharply rejecting the Hazon Ish’s opinion. בערב ש”ק העבר הרציתי מכתב להרב ר’ יחזקאל לעווינשטיין שליט”א בתשובה על מכתב הרב חזון איש, בו הודעתי טעמי ונימוקי שלא אסכים לפסק דינו על דבר דחיית יום השבת ביאפאן ליום א’ . . . כי דבריו בנוים על יסוד רעוע ובלתי ברור ומוסכם . . . ובלי ספק יגרום חלול שבת ותשתכח תורת שבת לגמרי . . . והריני מורה שיהודי יאפאן ישמרו שבת ומועדים ככל היהודים [במזרח הרחוק]. One wonders how R. Kiseleff would have reacted had he known that according to R. Simhah Zelig Rieger even in Harbin Jews should avoid Torah prohibitions on Sunday.[13] והרי הישראלים בחארבין שהיא מארץ חינא אינם מתנהגים כבעל המאור, נראה שלענין התפילה שהוא ענין דרבנן לא נשנה ממנהג הישראלים היושבים שם. ולענין איסור דאורייתא יש לחוש לדעת בעל המאור שהשבת מאוחרה לשל ירושלים I earlier mentioned R. Kiseleff’s book of derashot, Imrei Shefer. In addition to the typical derashot one would expect in such a volume, it also includes eulogies for the Hafetz Hayyim and R. Kook. Regarding R. Kook, R. Kiseleff tells us that they were at the Volozhin yeshiva together and R. Kook was regarded then as one of the yeshiva’s outstanding students. He also records a talmudic question that R. Kook asked that R. Kiseleff tells us became the talk of all the students. Also included in the book are speeches R. Kiseleff gave on the twentieth and twenty-fifth anniversaries of Herzl’s death. He describes how thanks to Herzl many Jews who were entirely removed from Jewish life and ready to assimilate began to feel pride in their heritage and reconnect to their people.

Also included in the book are speeches he gave in honor of the Balfour Declaration and in memory of Nahum Sokolow and the victims of the 1929 massacres in the Land of Israel. Especially noteworthy is the speech found on p. 97, which celebrates the opening of the Hebrew University.

Many readers know about R. Kook’s speech on this occasion, and how he was attacked for supposedly applying to the university the verse, “For Torah shall forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3, Micah 4:2).[14] While R. Kook never used this verse with reference to the Hebrew University, R. Kiseleff did, as you can see from the above text. * * * * * In my post here I wrote: It has been a while since I had a quiz, so here goes. In the current post I mentioned the prohibition of Torah study on Tisha be-Av. This is an example where the halakhah of Tisha be-Av is stricter than that of Yom Kippur. Many authorities rule that there is also something else that is forbidden on Tisha be-Av but permitted on Yom Kippur. Answers should be sent to me. Many wrote to me that it is forbidden to greet someone on Tisha be-Av but not on Yom Kippur. Greeting is forbidden on Tisha be-Av due to the halakhot of mourning. However, this is forbidden according to everyone, and in the question I asked for an example of something that according to “many authorities” is forbidden on Tisha be-Av but permitted on Yom Kippur. If you pointed to something that is forbidden by “all” authorities (i.e., standard undisputed halakhah), this is not the correct answer. A number of people also wrote to me that on Tisha be-Av one does not sit in a regular chair, unlike on Yom Kippur. Yet contrary to popular belief – and based on the emails I have received, it is indeed a quite popular belief – there is no halakhah that one must sit on the ground on Tisha be-Av. Rather, this is a minhag, not a law, and because it is a minhag we do not sit on the ground the entire day.[15] The correct answer, which was sent to me by Brian Schwartz and Abe Lederer, is that many authorities hold that it forbidden to smell spices on Tisha be-Av, but this is not the case on Yom Kippur. In fact, smelling spices is recommended on Yom Kippur as a way to increase the number of blessings recited on this day, so that one can reach one hundred.[16] While this is the answer I had in mind, Peretz Mochkin sent me another answer. If one has a seminal discharge on Yom Kippur, most poskim, including the Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 613:11, hold that he cannot go to the mikveh on this day. However, there are a number of significant authorities who hold that he may do so. When it comes to Tisha be-Av, there is agreement among halakhic authorities that it is forbidden to go to the mikveh after a seminal discharge.[17] However, this does not really answer the quiz question, since the question spoke of something that is permitted on Yom Kippur but forbidden on Tisha be-Av, and as noted, most poskim, at least in recent generations, forbid going to the mikveh on Yom Kippur in the case of a seminal discharge.[18] ______[1] I am aware of another posek who permits using an electronic key card on Shabbat, but requires covering up the green LED light. He explained to me that people feel good when they see the green light go I .פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה on, and thus it cannot be regarded as a wonder though, would other poskim agree that the feeling of satisfaction that the key works really be regarded as the sort of I think we usually assume ?ניחא ליה benefit that is considered as is some sort of tangible benefit, like a light that goes ניחא ליה that on and allows you to see. In any event, the LED light is not a concern for R. Rabinovitch, and he does not require covering it up. R. Yitzhak Abadi only permits using an electronic key card on Yom Tov, and he too does not require covering up the LED light. [2] See Donald Daniel Leslie, The Survival of the Chinese Jews: The Jewish Community of Kaifeng (Leiden, 1972), pp. 33-34; Jonathan D. Spence, The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci (New York, 1983), p. 121. [3] See Patrick Fuliang Shan, “‘A Proud and Creative Jewish Community’: The Harbin Diaspora, Jewish Memory and Sino-Israel Relations,” American Review of China Studies 9 (Fall 2008), p. 7. See also Joshua Fogel, “The Japanese and the Jews: A Comparative Analysis of Their Communities in Harbin, 1898-1930,” in Robert Bickers and Christian Henriot, eds., New Frontiers: Imperialism’s New Communities in East Asia, 1842-1935(Manchester, 2000), pp. 88-109 [4] See Zorah Warhaftig, Refugee and Survivor (Jerusalem, 19880, p. 208. [5] Yesodei Yeshurun: Shabbat, vol. 2, p. 216. [6] For the political background of these gatherings, see Herman Dicker, Wanderers and Settlers in the Far East (New York, 1962), pp. 45ff.; David Kranzler, Japanese, Nazis and Jews: The Jewish Refugee Comunity of Shanghai, 1938-1945 (Hoboken, 1988), pp. 220ff. [7] Ibid., pp. 25-26. Much of what Dicker writes is taken word for word from the introduction to Imrei Shefer. [8] Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat, 236:1. [9] David Avraham Mandelbaum, Giborei ha-Hayil (Bnei Brak, 2010), vol. 2, p. 105. [10] The Hebrew manuscripts in the Vatican was an issue in the late 1980s, when the late Manfred Lehmann led a group, the Committee for the Recovery of Jewish Manuscripts, which insisted that the manuscripts be returned to the Jewish people by being donated to the National Library of Israel. See Lehmann, “The Story of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library,” available here. Nothing came of this venture and it does not seem like anyone at present has any interest in making an issue of the matter. [11] From Mandelbaum, Giborei ha-Hayil, vol. 2, p. 109. [12] See R. Yohanan ha-Kohen Schwadron, “Be-Inyan Kav ha- Ta’arikh,” Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael, Shevat-Adar 5770, p. 118. The complete letters of R. Kiseleff to R. Levenstein and R. Aryeh Leib Malin (mentioned later in the post) are found in R. Menahem Kasher, Kav ha-Taarikh ha-Yisraeli (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 241-242. [13] See his letter published in Talpiot 2 (1945), pp. 177-178. [14] See my Changing the Immutable, pp. 143, 151. [15] See e.g., here. [16] See R. Yitzhak Yosef, Yalkut Yosef, Orah Hayyim 612:3. R. Yosef does cite a few sources that forbid smelling spices on Yom Kippur, but this viewpoint has never been accepted. I don’t think readers will be surprised to learn that there is an entire sefer devoted to the laws of smelling. The anonymously published 224-pageBirkat ha- Reiahappeared in 2004. Here is the title page. On pp. 196ff. he discusses the case of someone who has no sense of smell. The question is, can he make the blessing onbesamim ? The Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 297:5, rules that such a person can make the blessing on behalf of one who does not know how to make the blessing himself. This ruling was disputed by others, yet R. Jacob Reischer, Shevut Ya’akov, vol. 3, no. 20, defends the Shulhan Arukh, but as he says, not for R. Joseph Karo’s reason. R. Reischer argues that even though one without the sense of smell does not get any physical benefit from smelling something, his soul benefits. R. Reischer mentions that although the doctors reject the notion that the soul gets any benefit from this, their viewpoint can be disregarded because their scientific knowledge comes from “Aristotle and his companions.” R. Reischer died in 1733 and it is amazing that this is how he regarded the state of the study of medicine. Even more amazing, however, is that as he continues to attack modern science, R. Reischer adds that the non-Jewish scientists’ knowledge is based on the assumption that the earth is round, which contradicts the talmudic understanding and is thus to be rejected. How is it possible that in the eighteenth century R. Reischer believed that the earth was flat? The Vilna Gaon is also recorded as having held this opinion. See R. Joshua Heschel Levin, Aliyot Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1989), p. 98 n. 82. This also appears to be what the Vilna Gaon is saying in his commentary to Tikunei Zohar (Vilna, 1867), p. 158a:

והוא יסוד הארץ שהיא רבועא כמ”ש מארבע כנפות הארץ ואמר בספרי הכנף לאפוקי עגול’ [עגולה] See also R. Reuven Margaliyot’s note to Zohar, Vayikra, p. 10a, n. 10 (he mistakenly cites the Vilna Gaon’s comment as appearing in his commentary to Tikunei Zohar, p. 5b). Did R. Zvi Elimelekh of Dinov, the Bnei Yisaskhar, think the earth was flat? Here is what he writes in his Devarim Nehmadim to Avot 5:1: אין לחקור על היוצר כל למה ברא את העולם [בי’ מאמרות וגם] אין לחקור למה ברא את השמי’ כדוריי והארץ שטחיית וכיוצ’. See here for a contemporary rabbi and author of seforim who believes the earth is flat. [17] The only exceptions to this I have found are two unknown sources mentioned by R. Simhah Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot, Orah Hayyim 554 קונטרס קודש ישראל and תורת חיים (פעסט) note 58. These two sources are 18]] R. Joseph Hayyim, Rav Pealim, vol. 2, Orah Hayyim no. 61, states that among the medieval authorities, most held that it is permissible to to go to the mikveh on Yom Kippur after a seminal discharge: דהמתירים לטבול הם רוב מנין ורוב בנין

The Rogochover and More: Excursus on Fasting

The Rogochover and More: Excursus on Fasting

Marc B. Shapiro

Relevant to what appeared in the last post (see note 13), I wish to mention some leniencies regarding fast days that contradict mainstream halakhah. I have also included other interesting material regarding the fast days.

1. R. Israel Jacob Fischer, dayan on the beit din of the Edah Haredit, stated that in our day all pregnant women up until See .פחות מכשיעור the ninth month must eat on Yom Kippur his haskamah to R. Baruch Pinchas Goldberg,Penei Barukh (Jerusalem, 1985), where he writes:

כיום הזה שנחלשו הדורות, ועשרות רבות של נשים מפילות ע”י התענית, צריכין כל הנשים המעוברות עד החודש התשיעי לאכול ביוהכ”פ פחות מכשיעור.

For a criticism of this great leniency, which contradicts Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 617:1, see R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 17, no. 20. Elsewhere, R. Fischer states that pregnant women are forbidden to fast on Tisha be-Av.

מעוברת אסורה להתענות בת”ב, ואין כאן דין שיעורים, כי במקום סכנה לא גזרו חז”ל

See Even Yisrael, vol. 9, no. 62. This too is at odds with Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 554:5, which rules that pregnant women are obligated to fast on Tisha be-Av.

In an article on the OU website[1] R. Y. Dov Krakowski writes:

There are those who are Noheg that pregnant women do not even begin to fast on Tisha B’Av (there is very little if any Halachik backing to this hanhaga, but many of the chosheve senior Poskim have such a Mesorah. I have personally heard this from many family members who heard this from my great uncle the Veiner [!] Rov Zetzal and from my wife’s grandfather Harav Lipa Rabinowitz who says it in the name of his grandfather the Sundlander Rov Zatzal).

R. Yosef David Weissberg also reports that many halakhic authorities rule that in contemporary times pregnant women are not obligated to fast on Tisha be-Av.[2]

2. R. Akiva Joseph Schlesinger writes that he has a tradition from the Hatam Sofer that pregnant and nursing women should only fast on Yom Kippur, and even women who are not pregnant should only fast on Tisha be-Av and the other fast days if they are very healthy.[3] He also quotes an oral tradition from the Hatam Sofer which seems to be saying that if he had the authority, he would have abolished the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av. (See note 4 for another source where the Hatam Sofer says this explicitly.)

ובפרט אחרי כי בא חולשא לעולם, שמענו מהחת”ס זיע”א שאמר אי לאו דמיסתפינא כלפי ד’ תעניות חוץ מיוהכ”פ ות”ב מטעם חשש סכנה לכמה בני אדם, ובפרט לנשים ה’ ירחם, ולא להניח לבנותיו להתענות חוץ מהנ”ל.

His last words are not entirely clear. I think they mean that he would have preferred not to allow his daughters to fast except on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, but not that he did so ולא להניח but ולא הניח לבנותיו in practice. He does not say .לבנותיו

The editor adds a note explaining the passage just quoted, but he misunderstands what R. Schlesinger means when he He also mistakenly מטעם חשש סכנה לכמה בני אדם. writes understands the passage to mean that the Hatam Sofer forbade all women to fast, other than on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.

כאן כתב רבינו פסק החת”ס לענין שאר תעניות, דהיה אוסר להתענות לכל הנשים ואפילו למי שאינם מעוברות ומניקות, ולאנשים היה מתיר לכמה בני אדם אי לא דמסתפינא, אבל לנשים החליט להיתר.

R. Schlesinger also states that the rabbis did not allow women to fast except for Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.

בענין התעניות, בחולשתינו, רבותינו לא הניחו לנשים להתענות חוץ מט”ב ויוהכ”פ.

R. Schlesinger himself suggests that the women not fasting should give some money to charity and fast a few hours or even abstain from food the evening before the fast actually begins.

Returning to the Hatam Sofer’s comment that if he had the authority, he would abolish the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, the exact same thing was said by R. Abraham Joshua Heschel of Apta. He added that on Yom Kippur, who needs to eat (since we should be so involved in our prayers), and on Tisha be-Av, who is able to eat (as we should be so focused on mourning what we have lost)?[5] אם הייתי בכוחי הייתי מבטל כל התעניתים חוץ מיום המר והמנהר (הוא ט’ באב), שאז מי יוכל לאכול. וחוץ מיום הקדוש והנורא (הוא יום כפור), דאז מי צריך לאכול.

R. Abraham also reported that he was told by his teacher, R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, that if he could find two others to join with him, he would abolish “the fasts” (presumably, everything except for Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av).[6]

3. R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer, vol. 10, Orah Hayyim no. 39, discusses the laws of a nursing woman and the various fasts. On p. 503, in the hosafot u-miluim, he adds:

מש”כ להקל במינקת שאפילו הפסיקה להניק אם היא בתוך כ”ד חודש ללידה פטורה מלהתענות ג’ צומות ותענית אסתר. יש להסתייע ממ”ש הגאון בעל דרכי תשובה בשו”ת צבי תפארת סוף סי’ מח: וז”ל: ודע כי שמעתי מפה קדוש של מורי הגאון הקדוש אדמו”ר רבי יחזקאל משינאווא זצללה”ה, שאמר, כי הוא מקובל מגאוני וצדיקי הדור הקודמים זצ”ל, שכל אשה שעומדת עדיין בימים שיכולה ללדת, ובימי הצומות היא חלושת המזג, אפילו היא בריאה ושלימה, נכון יותר שלא תתענה, ורק לאחר שיפסוק זמנה מללדת עוד, אם תהיה בבריאות תשלים אותם התעניות, לחיים ברכה ושלום. ע”כ

This is a fascinating passage as R. Ovadiah is quoting R. Zvi Hirsch Shapira in the name of R. Ezekiel Halberstam of Shinova, who himself is passing on a tradition from earlier geonim and tzadikim, that women of childbearing age, even if they are not pregnant, do not have to fast if they feel weak. This ruling is in contradiction to Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 550:1, which states that women are also obligated to fast on the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz and Tzom Gedaliah, and does not give any exemption if they feel weak (as pretty much everyone feels a little weak when fasting). As we have already seen, R. Akiva Joseph Schlesinger states that “our rabbis” did not allow any women, not just those of childbearing age, to fast on these days.

R. Meir Mazuz, Sansan le-Yair (2012 ed), p. 354, notes this passage of R. Zvi Hirsch Shapira and reacts very strongly:

והוא נגד חז”ל חכמי התלמוד וכל הפוסקים שלא התירו רק למעוברת ומניקה. ומזה למדו רוב המורות והתלמידות בבית יעקב בימינו שלא לצום כל ד’ תעניות, ואוכלות בריש גלי בשעת ההפסקה כאילו לא היו ד’ תעניות בעולם ולא תיקנו אותם הנביאים.

Is R. Mazuz correct that most teachers and students at Bais Yaakov schools do not fast on the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah, and Ta’anit Esther? I know that in the yeshiva world many do not fast, but my question is, is this really the majority, and are there any differences between Bais Yaakov schools in the U.S. and Israel? (Even though R. established by the prophets, I am ד’ תעניות Mazuz refers to assuming he means the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah, and Ta’anit Esther, as religious women of all stripes fast on Tisha be-Av.)

See also here where R. Yitzhak Yosef states that he heard that in some seminaries they tell the young women that they do not have to fast except for Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.

When I told a friend about what this post is focused on, he mentioned that he knows that many women do not fast other than on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, but that he never heard of a “mainstream” posek who had this position. From R. Mazuz’s harsh comment it seems that he too assumes that there is no real halakhic basis for the practice of not fasting. My response to my friend, which I now share with readers, is that you can’t get any more mainstream than the great R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and this was indeed his position. In Halikhot Shlomo: Moadei ha-Shanah, Nisan-Av, p. 401 n. 16, the following appears:

ולענין נשים הי’ דרכו של רבנו להשיב לשואלים שהמנהג במקומותינו היה שהנשים אינן מתענות כלל, ואף הנערות, מלבד תשעה באב ויוהכ”פ. אבל לאנשים אין להקל כלל בד’ תעניות ותענית אסתר יותר מהבמואר בפוסקים.

It is hard to criticize women for not fasting on the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah, and Ta’anit Esther when R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach saw no problem with this practice.

As with R. Mazuz, R. Eliezer Shlomo Schik,here , uses the expression “4 fast days” and it refers to the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah and Ta’anit Esther. He notes that the practice in Breslov is that no women fast on these days. I have been told that among other hasidic groups there is variation. Some women fast on these days, others never fast, and some do not fast if they are married and of childbearing age. (In discussing unusual leniencies, there is no need to mention standard kulot that deal with pregnant and nursing women.)

R. Yohanan Wosner, a dayan in the Skverer community, writes that while some permit married women of childbearing age to forego the fasts (other than Tisha be-Av and Yom Kippur), there are those who permit even unmarried women to do so.[7]

In R. Simhah Rabinowitz’s Piskei Teshuvot, Orah Hayyim 550:1, he states that a few great figures (gedolei ha-dorot) were lenient and permitted all women of childbearing age to forego the fasts (other than Tisha be-Av and Yom Kippur). I must note, however, that none of the figures he refers to were halakhic authorities. The first source he cites was mentioned by me in the last post, note 13.[8] In it we see that the hasidic master R. Nathan David of Szydłowiec said that no women of childbearing age should fast, except for on Yom Kippur. The fact that he said that even on Tisha be-Av such women should not fast is, I think, quite radical. The passage also records a subversive comment from R. Ezekiel of Kozmir about how the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah, who instituted the fast days, are embarrassed now because they did not anticipate the much weaker recent generations. R. Ezekiel The point of such a comment was presumably to “give cover” for those who find it difficult to fast and thus choose not to.

ושמעתי מחסיד ישיש א’ שנסע להרה”ק ר’ יחזקאל מקאזמיר ז”ל שהוא היה מקיל גדול בתעניות, ואמר שאנשי כנסה”ג שתקנו התעניות מתביישין על שלא הסתכלו בדורות אלו, וסיפר כמה ענינים מקולותיו שהיה קשה לי לכתוב, ובשם רבינו הקדוש ז”ל מפאריסאב שמעתי שאמר בזה”ל מוזהר ועומד אני מהה”ק ר’ נתן דוד ז”ל משידלאווצע לדרוש ברבים ששום אשה שראויה עדיין לילד לא תתענה כ”א ביום הקדוש, ולכן עכ”פ אדרוש זאת לידידיי.

The second source R. Rabinowitz cites is a report that R. Menahem Mendel of Kotzk said that with women one must be lenient when it comes to the fast days, as they need strength to give birth.[9]

שמעתי מהה”ג מהו”ר מאיר בארנשטיין ז”ל ששמע מפ”ק כ”ק מרן הקדוש זצוקלל”ה מקאצק דבאשה יש להקל בתעניות משום שצריכה כח להוליד בנים.

This is a very sensible statement which incidentally all poskim would agree with. But contrary to what R. Rabinowitz states, it says nothing about exempting women of childbearing age from any fast days. It only says that when dealing with such women the posek should be lenient.

The final source R. Rabinowitz quotes is from R. Ezekiel Halberstam of Shinova which was mentioned already.

4. R. Sadqa Hussein (1699-1772) was the leading rabbi in Baghdad in his day. He ruled that no pregnant women should fast on Tisha be-Av, as it was so hot in Baghdad that fasting created a situation of sakanat nefashot.[10]

5. Here is a fascinating section of a 1953 letter from Joseph Weiss to Gershom Scholem.[11] It provides evidence that there was a time that members of the Ruzhiner “royal family” did not complete the fast of Tisha be-Av.[12] Do any readers know anything about this?

It could be that this practice relates to the tradition that R. Israel of Ruzhin died at the premature age of 54 as a result of fasting on Yom Kippur. Ahron Marcus writes:[13]

הוא נפטר מצמאון הלב שנגרם לו, כעדות הרופא המפורסם מלבוב, ד”ר יעקב רפפורט, ביום הכפורים האחרון תרי”א, כאשר התגבר על הבולמוס של צמא והשלים את תעניתו, מבלי לגמוע טיפת מים במשך היממה. הרבנים הנוכחים, אשר מורי הרבי שלמה רבינוביץ זצ”ל גינה את מבוכתם, לא העיזו להתיר לו את השתיה, על אף הדין המפורש בשולחן ערוך במקרה כזה. הוא הסתפק בכך, שטבל את קצות אצבעותיו בקערת מים ונשם את ריח המים, ובזה הגביר את ענוייו. המסכנים לא הבינו, כי גופו של אותו צדיק, על אף כפיפותו המוחלטת לכוחות הנפש, היה נתון לחוקי טבע רגילים. הוא לא שב לאיתנו, ונסתלק בג’ מרחשון.

In discussing this story, R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin writes:[14]

ומכל הרבנים הגדולים שהיו שם לא עלתה אף על דעת אחד מהם, שאם הצדיק אמר כן, בודאי הוא מרגיש כי בנפשו הוא, ויש פקוח נפש בדבר. שתקו הרבנים ומכיון שלא התירו לו, סבל הצדיק, וקפצה עליו מחלת הלב, שקורין “הערץ-וועסער זוכט”, ומאנה להרפא. מחלתו נמשכה עד יום ג’ מרחשון, ונשמתו הטהורה עלתה אז לגנזי מרומים.

This is obviously an extreme example of being “frum” at someone else’s expense, in this case at the expense of literally his life.

Regarding R. Israel of Ruzhin, it is also recorded that he said that if someone feels a little bit weak he should not fast.[15]

וכשם שמצוה לשמור ישראל מעבירה כן מצוה ליזהר לכל איש אם יש לו מעט רפיון כח שלא יתענה.

It is not clear if this advice refers to all fasts, including Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.

Since the above-mentioned permission to eat on Tisha be-Av – and no doubt this also applied to the other fast days aside from Yom Kippur – was reserved for members of the Ruzhin “royal family,” it reminded me of a passage in R. Moses Sofer, Hatam Sofer al ha-Torah, vol. 2, p. 165a (haftarah for parashat Pekudei). The Hatam Sofer states that in theory, if one is able to focus all of his intentions on the glory of God, without getting any physical benefit, then it would permissible to eat on Yom Kippur. But he adds that this is something that only gedolei Yisrael can accomplish.

דודאי לאכול ביה”כ לשם מצוה אם אדם יכול לכוון כל מחשבתו לכבוד ה’ בלי שום כונה אחרת להנאת הגוף אזי היא צורך גבוה כמו קרבנות נשיאים ועוד טוב ממנו ויפה דנו ק”ו אך מי יכול לעמוד בזה כ”א גדולי ישראל שהרי משום כך ס”ל לאבא שאול [יבמות לט ע”ב] מצות חליצה קודם למצות יבום לרוב העולם שאינם יכולי’ לעמוד על מחשבתם שלא לכוון להנאת הגוף.

6. R. Joseph Mordechai Yedid Halevi, Yemei Yosef (Jerusalem, 1913), vol. 1, Orah Hayyim, no. 9, states that scholars and melamedim, if their fasting will affect their learning or teaching, are not obligated in any of the fasts other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.

7. The practice in Stockholm used to be that the community ended the fast of the 17th of Tamuz nine and a half hours after hatzot, which is before it is dark. This practice was defended by R. Benjamin Zvi Auerbach in hisNahal Eshkol, Hilkhot Tisha be-Av, p. 16 n. 1. I have heard from R. Chaim Greisman, the Chabad rabbi in Stockholm, that today they end the fast of 17th of Tamuz when it is dark. According to the times provided on www.chabad.org, in 2018 this will be at 11:38pm, with the fast beginning that morning at 12:51am (alot ha-shachar).[16] R. Michael Melchior, the chief rabbi of Norway, informs me that they also end the fast at darkness. This means that in 2018 in Oslo the fast of the 17th of Tamuz will end at 12:19am, with the fast beginning at 1:20am.[17]

R. Aaron Worms, Meorei Or, vol. 4 (Be’er Sheva), p. 14b, writes as follows about the northern European countries:

וכבר שמענו שהקילו רבנים קדמונים במדינו’ ההם לסיים תעניתם בצום הרביעי וצום החמישי בעוד היום גדול בשעת חשיכה לרוב גלות ישראל ואף שתענית שלא שקעה עליו חמה לאו תענית שאני התם שמעקרא לא קבלו יותר מרוב ישראל.

Notice how he also refers to ending Tisha be-Av tzom( ha- hamishi) when it is still daylight. The justification he offers is the same as was later given by R. Auerbach, but R. Auerbach’s justification was only stated with regard to the 17th of Tamuz, not Tisha be-Av.

8. R. Ernst Gugenheim, Letters from Mir (New York, 2014), p. 106, wrote as follows in 1938:

Tomorrow [the day before Purim] will be a day of fasting. Here [in the Mir Yeshiva], they are rather meikil with respect to this viewpoint, and many bachurim, too weak, do not fast completely. It is true that every day for them is a day of half-fasting, such that they are quite weakened.[18]

9. R. Mordechai Eliyahu ruled that a pregnant or nursing woman can break her fast on Tisha be-Av if she is having difficulty fasting, and she does not need to ask a halakhic question. Rather, she is to determine herself if it is too difficult for her.[19] In 2007, because it was very hot on Tisha be-Av, R. Eliyahu ruled that no pregnant women needed to fast.[20]

10. R. Shmuel Salant was very liberal when it came to the fasts other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av. If someone merely said that he was thirsty and wished to drink, R. Salant would immediately tell him to do so. If someone told R. Salant that fasting was difficult for him, R. Salant would permit him not to fast, and he did not ask for any particulars from the questioner. This was based on a teaching he had from R. Isaac of Volozhin, “that one safek sefeka related to pikuah nefesh pushes aside many fasts.”[21] Once, on a fast day between minhah and maariv, he heard someone say that he was thirsty and was waiting for maariv so that he could drink. R. Salant immediately got the man a cup of water and told him to drink it.[22]

A similar approach is recorded with regard to R. Meir Shapiro[23].

והיה אומר כי בדורות החלשים כבימינו כל מה שאוכלים הוי ככדי חייו, וצום הוי כסכנה לאנשים רבים, ולכן התיר להרבה לאכול בימי צום.

11. R. Haim Ovadia, a contemporary liberal Orthodox rabbi, argues that the minor fasts (which include all fasts other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av) are optional in today’s day and age. See his discussion here. He concludes his analysis as follows:

In the current state of the Jewish people in Israel and abroad, the Talmudic rule demands that fasting on the minor fast days should be optional, and according to Ha’Meiri, fasting would even be forbidden, maybe because it shows lack of gratitude to God. For that reason, one who chooses not to fast on these days cannot be considered one who breaches the law, and can definitely rely on the ruling of Rashba. Hopefully, in the coming years, more and more individuals will choose to acknowledge the fact that we leave [!] in better times and develop a more positive worldview, and as a result maybe persuade the rabbinic leadership to reassess the situation and leave us with only two fast days, Tisha Be’Av and Yom Kippur, thus making those two much more meaningful.

12. R. Herschel Schachter, Nefesh ha-Rav, pp. 261-262, writes:

כשהורי רבנו התחתנו, שלח הגר”ח להודיע להכלה מרת פעשא שא”צ להתענות ביום חתונתה, כי כך היה דן כל אדם בזה”ז כחולה שאב”ס, שא”צ להתענות בשאר תעניות [ואפי בט’ באב, כדעת המחבר (תקנ”ד ס”ו) והאבני נזר (חאו”ח סי’ תכ”ט), ודלא כדעת הט”ז (שמה סק”ד), (כן שמעתי)] חוץ מביוה”כ. . . . נהג רבנו להתענות בכל התעניות, ואפילו ביאה”צ.

R. Schachter cites R. Chaim Soloveitchik as saying that today everyone is regarded as suffering from a non-life-threatening illness and thus there is no obligation to fast other than on Yom Kippur. He adds that R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik did not follow this view but fasted on all the fast days, including when he had yahrzeit.

This is a radical view, as I do not know anyone else who stated that other than Yom Kippur, there is no longer an obligation to fast, even on Tisha be-Av. I must note, however, that there is no real source for this report in the name of R. Chaim. I spoke to R. Schachter about this and he told me that there is also a story that R. Chaim left a will stating that people should not fast on Tisha be-Av. Again, there is no source for this report, and like many such stories it is hard to know if there is any truth to it. Had R. Chaim felt strongly about this matter he could have announced his supposed view to his community, but he never did so.

There is something else that should be mentioned in this regard. The late Professor Aaron Schreiber told me that he heard from R. Simcha Sheps, who studied in Brisk, that one day on the 17th Tamuz he visited the Brisker Rav, R. Isaac Zev Soloveitchik, in Jerusalem. He entered the Brisker Rav’s home and found him at the table eating! It is hard to know how much faith we can put in such a report as with the passage of time people’s memories can change. Someone I know was told by R. Ahron Soloveichik that the Brisker Rav ate on Tishah be-Av, but this was for a medical reason, not because of any halakhic rationale regarding the current binding nature of the fasts.

13. The Ben Ish Hai, parashat Shoftim (first year), no. 17, rules that a groom – the same would apply to a bride – within the week of his wedding does not fast on Tzom Gedaliah, 10th of Tevet, Ta’anit Esther, and 17th of Tamuz. [24] He adds this was the practice in Baghdad.[25] (The exemption from fasting on Ta’anit Esther is mentioned by many others.[26])

R. Ovadiah Yosef is more stringent in this matter. He states that only if the 17th of Tamuz is pushed off to Sunday (and this would apply to the other fasts as well), then the bride and groom do not need to fast.[27]

R. Elijah Mani, another Baghdadi, records an additional liberal opinion (which he himself does not accept) in line with what the Ben Ish Hai wrote.[28]

נשאלתי אם החתן חייב להתענות [בעשרה בטבת]. ואני שמעתי ממורי הי”ו [הרב עבדאללה סומך] ששמע מהרב הגדול משה חיים זלה”ה, שאומר לחתן כרצונו אם תרצה להתענות ואם תרצה שלא להתענות.

14. R. Shmuel Wosner, Shevet ha-Levi, vol. 8, no. 261, states that someone who flies from Israel to the United States on a fast day such as the 17th of Tamuz does not need to wait until it is dark in the United States in order to break his fast. Rather, he can break the fast at the time that it is over in I ביום תענית וכמו בי”ז בתמוז Israel. Since R. Wosner writes assume that he excludes Tisha be-Av from this lenient ruling.[29]

15. In my post here I discussed the original halakhic approach of R. Yitzhak Barda. When it comes to the fast days he also has an original perspective in that he holds that on Tzom Gedaliah, 10th of Tevet, Ta’anit Esther, and 17th of Tamuz, one can break the fast at sunset rather than waiting until darkness, which is the standard practice. See here. This is a more lenient position than his earlier approach found in his Yitzhak Yeranen, vol. 3, no. 20 and vol. 5, no. 41, where he only permits one to break the fast of the 10th of Tevet at sunset when the fast is on Friday.

16. In Teshuvot ha-Geonim: Shaarei Teshuvah, no. 325, the following appears:

זקן חלש שהיה מתענה ובתוך התענית שעבר עליו רובו של יום בתענית וכבר בא לידי חלישות בענין שחושש לסכנה מאכילין אותו אפילו ביום כיפור ולא שבקי ליה דימות וגמרינן מההיא עוברה דהריחה כו’ כ”ש אם הוא זה זקן נכבד שאם ימות ויסתכן על תענית זה יהיה הפסד לרבים.

This geonic responsum has been cited numerous times and no one saw anything problematic with it. However, in 1995 R. Yehiel Avraham Silber published his Birur Halakhah: Telita’ah, and he has a different perspective.[30] He states that “there is no doubt” that this responsum is a forgery. His reason is that nowhere in halakhic discussions ofpikuah nefesh is consideration ever given to whether a person is “honorable”. as a זקן נכבד Yet in the geonic responsum it speaks of a factor to be considered in permitting someone to break his Yom Kippur fast, as his life is not just an individual matter but is of importance to the community as a whole.

R. Silber writes:

תשובות הגאונים שערי תשובה נדפס לראשונה בשאלוניקי בשנת תקס”ב – תקופת הנסיון של עקירת התורה על ידי זיופים; סמוך לזה בשנת תקנ”ג יצא לאור לראשונה הספר שכולו זיוף בשמים ראש.

I think all readers can see that his argument has no basis whatsoever. Furthermore, the appearance of Besamim Rosh, a rabbinic forgery published by a maskil in Berlin in 1793, has absolutely nothing to do with a volume of responsa published in 1802 Salonika, a place far removed from any Haskalah influence. R. Silber’s claim is so unreasonable that I would never even refer to it in an academic article, and only mention it here as another curiosity from the world of seforim.

17. Here is a fascinating text that was called to my attention by R. Chaim Rapoport. It appears in R. Samuel Elijah Taub’s Imrei Esh (Jerusalem, 1996), p. 186, and has been subsequently included in other works.

R. Taub, the Modzitzer Rebbe (1905-1984), states that his forefather, R. Ezekiel of Kozmir (1772-1856), was lenient with all the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be- Av.[31] He then says that R. Ezekiel was very opposed to Tzom Gedaliah, and used to say that in Heaven Gedaliah is embarrassed that they established a fast day in his memory. Earlier in this post I cited a passage from R. Abraham Yelin that mentions how R. Ezekiel said thatAnshei Keneset ha- Gedolah are now embarrassed for having instituted the fast days (see the source in n. 8). R. Yelin also writes that “it is difficult for him to record” some of R. Ezekiel’s leniencies regarding the fast days.[32]

R. Ezekiel’s opposition to Tzom Gedaliah was such that in his beit midrash it was declared that whoever wishes to fast on this day should leave Kozmir. We can thus assume that none of R. Ezekiel’s followers fasted on Tzom Gedaliah. Does anyone know if this antinomian view about Tzom Gedaliah continued among his descendants, which include the rebbes of Modzitz?

18. There is a joke in the “frum” world which goes as follows: There are three reasons not to fast on Tzom Gedaliah.

1. It is a nidcheh (as he was killed on Rosh ha- Shanah).[33]

2. Even if he was not killed he would not have been alive today.

3. He would not have fasted for me if I was killed.

While this is only a joke, R. Ephraim Bilitzer records that it was widely reported that certain hasidic rebbes said that Gedaliah was troubled in heaven by the fact that thousands of Jews fasted on his account.[34] Therefore, followers of these hasidic rebbes did not fast on Tzom Gedaliah. R. Bilitzer finds it hard to believe such stories, but after what we have seen with R. Ezekiel of Kozmir, it is obvious that, at least with regard to R. Ezekiel, this was indeed the case.

Would R. Ezekiel, or any other hasidic rebbe who told his followers not to fast on Tzom Gedaliah, be impressed by R. Bilitzer’s very non-hasidic objection?

הלא דין הוא בש”ע להתענות ומה זה שנהגו שלא להתענות נגד הש”ע

After all, the Shulhan Arukh also gives the times for prayer, and a number of hasidic rebbes ignored these as well.[35]

In general, it should not surprise us to find hasidic rebbes with lenient approaches to fast days. R. Bilitzer himself informs us that R. Yissachar Dov Rokeah, the Belzer Rebbe, told his followers who were with him for the High Holy Days that anyone who felt the least bit weak on Tzom Gedaliah should immediately eat. This is a very lenient approach, and if followed by the Jewish world at large it would mean, I think, that not many teenagers would fast on this day. While fasting gets easier as one gets older, my experience has been that most teenagers find it at least a little bit difficult to fast.

The following story, about R. Solomon of Radomsk, even shows great leniency with regard to Tisha be-Av. I am sure readers will wonder why R. Solomon thought it was necessary for people to drink when the fast was just about over. If he wanted people to break the fast, why not have them drink earlier in the day?[36]

היה נוהג להקל בתעניות. פעם אחת, בערב תשעה באב ארעה שרפה בבית בנו, והיו הכל טרודים בכבוי השרפה. לפני גמר התענית, בשעת בין השמשות, הלך אל הבאר, הסמוכה לבית המדרש, וצוה לכל אחד לשתות מים.

Here is another interesting passage, from R. Abraham Yelin, Derekh Tzadikim, p. 13b, no. 44: It states that R. Mordechai of Nes’chiz used to pray minhah when it was already dark. However, on the 17th of Tamuz he finished maariv when it was still light. It is true that this text does not mention actually eating when it was still light, but isn’t that the implication of the passage? What else could it be coming to tell us, without having to be too explicit? I can’t imagine that it means that they finished maariv early so that people could go home and be ready to eat as soon as the fast was over.

It was not only hasidic rabbis who had such a liberal perspective (and I have already referred to R. Chaim Soloveitchik). Here is a story that was told by a hasidic rabbi to the grandson of R. Baruch Bendit Gliksman.[37] (R. Baruch Bendit was a misnaged.[38]):

פעם ישבתי ביום תענית בליטומירסק ולמדתי יחד עם בן גיסי, האדמו”ר רבי חנוך העניך מאלקסנדר וחתן גיסי, רבה של לודז הג”ר יחזקאל נומברג. נכנס אלינו זקנך הג”ר בנדיט מלאסק ומיני מזונות בידו, דורש מאתנו כי נטעום מעט ונפסיק את התענית, אמר: “מובטחני כי תהיו פעם מורי הלכה בישראל, לכן עז רצוני כי תלמדו להקל בתעניתים”.

Returning to Tzom Gedaliah, I found an interesting passage in R. Yitzhak Meir Morgenstern’sShe’erit Yaakov on Tractate Megillah.[39] He writes:

וראיתי דיש אנשים שנהגו להקל בצום גדליה כשנוסעים בדרך, ותמהתי עליהם איה מקורם.

R. Morgenstern is not referring to Modern Orthodox people. He is referring to those in his own hasidic circle, and he tells us that among them there are some who do not fast on Tzom Gedaliah when they are traveling. He wonders what the source for this practice is and is not able to find a good justification. For the purposes of this post, however, the very fact that he acknowledges the existence of a laxity when it comes to Tzom Gedaliah is significant.

R. Raphael Aaron Ben Shimon (1848-1928), the chief rabbi of Cairo, also speak of laxity regarding the fast days other than Tisha be-Av and Yom Kippur.[40] However, unlike R. Morgenstern, he was referring to a traditional Sephardic community rather than a haredi population.

בעון פשתה המספחת להקל בתעניות הצבור חוץ מט’ באב ויוה”כ

I think R. Ben Shimon’s description is also applicable to many in the Modern Orthodox world, at least in the United States. That is, while they are careful to fast on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, this is not the case regarding the other fast days. But unlike what we have seen with R. Morgenstern, no one would think to ask if there is any halakhic support for this. Even those who eat on the fast days know that their behavior is not in line with halakhah.[41]

[1] I mention the source since I was surprised that the OU would post an article written in “yeshivish” rather than converting it to standard English. [2] Otzar ha-Berit (Jerusalem, 2002), vol. 1, 5:2. [3] She’elot u-Teshuvot Rabbi Akiva Yosef, vol. 1, no. 174. [4] See Minhagei Rabotenu ve-Halikhoteihem (Jerusalem, 2009), p. 317, citing the book Elef Ketav, no. 671: החת”ס זלה”ה אמר, אם היה בכוחו היה מבטל כל התעניתים זולת ת”ב ויוה”כ. Megillah 5b states that R. Judah ha-Nasi wished to abolish the fast of Tisha be-Av but the Sages disagreed. Another version recorded ibid., is that he only wanted to abolish Tisha be-Av if it was postponed to Sunday, but the Sages disagreed. [5] Yalkut Ohev Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1998), p. 124. [6] R. Israel of Ruzhin, Irin Kadishin, parashat Va-Yikra (p. 19a). When the text mentions abolishing “the fasts”, I don’t think it is merely referring to individual fasts that pious people undertake, as the term “abolish” would not seem to fit in that context. [7] Hayyei ha-Levi, vol. 6, Orah Hayyim no. 95. It is interesting that some treat unmarried women with more leniency than men, because when it comes to the fast of the 20th of Sivan, commemorating the Chmielnicki massacres,Shaarei Teshuvah, Orah Hayyim 580:1, writes: שמעתי בימי חרפי שנכתב בפנקס הארצות שהגזרה היא לבן י”ח בזכר ולבת ט”ו בנקבה. For some reason, when it came to the fast of the 20th of Sivan the rabbis wanted 15-year-old girls to fast, but boys were only supposed to do so from the age of 18. [8] R. Abraham Yelin, Derekh Tzadikim (Petrokov, 1912), pp. 13b-14b. [9] R. Abraham Pitrokovski, Piskei Teshuvah (Jerusalem, 2001), no. 88 (Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, p. 88). [10] See R. Hussein, Tzedakah u-Mishpat (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 10. [11] Gershom Scholem ve-Yosef Weiss: Halifat Mikhtavim 1948-1964 (Jerusalem, 2012), p. 102. [12] Rabbi and Mrs. Samuel Sperber, mentioned in the letter, are the parents of Professor Daniel Sperber. [13] Ha-Hasidut, trans. M. Shenfeld (Tel Aviv, 1954), p. 223. See also R. Yissachar Tamar, Alei Tamar, Yoma, p. 396, who records in the name of the Rebbe of Husiatyn a different version of what R. Israel did with the water placed before him. לרה”ק מריזין היתה לו דלקת גדולה בפיו וביחוד על השפתיים מתוך הצימאון הגדול, והעמידו לפניו קערה עם מים קרים כדי ששפתיו יתקררו מעט ע”י האדים היוצאים ממים קרים. [14] Sipurei Hasidim (Tel Aviv, 1957), vol. 2, p. 85. [15] Irin Kadishin, parashat Va-Yikra (pp. 19a-b). [16] This time for alot ha-shahar is accompanied by the following note: “On this date at this location the sun does not set far enough below the horizon to use the standard calculation. The Chabad custom is to use Chatzot for this time.” [17] These times were given to me by R. Melchior. Chabad’s site has the fast in Oslo ending at 12:18am (one minute earlier than R. Melchior) and beginning at 1:20am (the same time as R. Melchior). There are significant differences between these times and the times that appear on the popular myzmanim.com. On the latter site it says that this year in Oslo the fast begins at 2:48 am, which is significantly later than the official community practice and the Chabad practice. Myzmanim.com states that the fast ends according to R. Tukatzinsky at 12:34am, which, we are told, is the emergence .This is a later time than that of R .ג’ כוכבים בינונים of Melchior and Chabad. For Oslo, myzmanim.com does not give a time for the end of the fast according to R. Moshe Feinstein. There are also divergences when it comes to Stockholm. As noted, the Chabad site has the fast of the 17th of Tamuz this year beginning at 12:51am and ending at 11:38pm. Myzmanim.com has the fast beginning at 2:25am and ending at 11:45pm according to R. Tukatzinsky and at 12:09am according to R. Moshe Feinstein. Readers can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that people who will be in Oslo or Stockholm on the 17th of Tamuz (or any other day for that matter) are halakhically permitted to rely on what appears on myzmanim.com in opposition to the local community’s practice. [18] Among other passages that readers will find interesting is p. 160: I have already gedavent [prayed] and listened to the weekly Inyan of Reb Chatzkel – Yechezkel [Levenstein]. He has already spoken very often against thedatsche = vacations, wanting only the weak or sick bachurim really to go rest, but I observe he has not had much success in this respect and that there will be exactly the same number leaving. On the other hand, the yeshiva had gotten into the habit of rowing on the lake – but a single Inyan sufficed to bring an end to this custom from one day to the next – which constituted in a way a chillul Hashem, because in doing it the bachurim put themselves in the same category as the town people. Yet, is it not correct that, since the Torah is different from everything that exists, a ben Torah is distinguished by his behavior from his entire entourage? In Yiddish, it’s much better. I am sure that on my arrival in Mir, I would not have been able to understand that it was base to ride a bicycle or to go rowing. It is obvious that these restrictions are only valid here in this place, but you can also see how much the städtische [city dwellers] feel respect or anger to the yeshiva-leit. On p. 96 he writes: “Our milk is purely Jewish milk, but the butter comes from goyim and is subject to no shemira of any sort.” [19] R. Moshe Harari, Mikraei Kodesh: Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, p. 220 n. 6. [20] R. Harari, Mikraei Kodesh: Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, p. 221 n. 7. [21] Aderet Shmuel (Jerusalem, 2014), p. 145. [22] Ibid., p. 146. [23] R. Natan Lubert, She’erit Natan (Ashdod, 2013), p. 147. [24] R. Solomon Laniado of Baghdad found the Ben Ish Hai’s position so astounding that he claimed that there is a printing error, and the text should be corrected to say that the groom needs to fast on all days except for Ta’anit Esther. See his letter in R. Yitzhak Nissim, Yein ha-Tov, vol. 2, Even ha-Ezer no. 2. (The title of R. Nissim’s book is often pronounced Yayin ha-Tov, but that is incorrect. See Song of Songs 7:10.) [25] The Ben Ish Hai’s testimony about the practice in Baghdad is problematic, as his contemporary, R. Elisha Dangor, writes that the practice in Baghdad is that the groom does fast in the week of his wedding, with the exception of Ta’anit Esther. See Gedulot Elisha (Jerusalem, 1976), Orah Hayyim 549:5. R. Ovadiah Yosef, Halikhot Olam, vol. 2, p. 211, cites the Ben Ish Hai’s student, R. Joshua Sharbani, who says that the because the Ben Ish Hai was so busy and involved in Torah study, he is not such a reliable source for the practices of Baghdad. שהרב בן איש חי לא היה בקי כל כך במנהגי בגדאד לרוב טרדתו ושקידתו בתורה This is quite a surprising this to say, as the Ben Ish Hai lived in Baghdad so how could he not be aware of things? Yet R. Ovadiah Yosef finds support for R. Sharbani’s comment in a responsum of R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Hayim Sha’al, vol. 2, no. 35:2. R. Azulai cites a few examples where R. Joseph Karo testifies as to what the accepted practice was, and yet we have evidence that contradicts what R. Karo states. R. Azulai explains the reason for R. Karo’s mistake: ויתכן שלרוב קדושתו וטרדת לימודו לא דקדק וסבר שהמנהג כך ואינו כן [26] See R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yehaveh Da’at, vol.2, no. 78. [27] Yehaveh Da’at, vol. 3, no. 37. In Yalkut Yosef: Kitzur it states that a ,(מילה במועדי השנה) Shulhan Arukh 265:13 groom can only eat on the pushed-off fast day afterhatzot. [28] Ma’aseh Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 2017), no. 119. [29] In an earlier responsum, Shevet ha-Levi, vol. 7, no. 76, he does not say to break the fast when it is over in Israel. Rather, he says that one can break the fast when one feels weak. [30] See Birur Halakhah: Telita’ah, Orah Hayyim 618. [31] It is interesting that he quotes R. Ezekiel as saying something very similar to what I cited earlier in this post from R. Abraham Joshua Heschel of Apta: בשחור מי יכול לאכול – והכוונה היתה לתשעה באב שהוא יום חורבן ואבילות, ומי יכול אז לאכול. ובלבן מי צריך לאכול – היינו ביוהכ”פ ומי צריך לאכול, הרי בני אדם כמלאכים. [32] Yelin, Derekh ha-Tzadikim, pp. 13b-14a. [33] This is how the joke was told to me. While many indeed assume that Gedaliah was killed on Rosh ha-Shanah, Maimonides believes that he was killed on the third of Tishrei. See Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ta’aniyot 5:2. On the assumption that he was killed on Rosh ha-Shanah (which is the dominant opinion), and the fast day was pushed off from its actual date, does this mean that every year Tzom Gedaliah has the status of a pushed-off fast day, with the various leniencies that go with it? Most say no, but there are some who say yes. R. Yair Rosenfeld has recently discussed the matter in Ha-Ma’yan 56 (Tishrei 5777), and he concludes (p. 18): לאור זאת, יולדת במקום שמנהג הנשים לצום בד’ צומות יכולה להמנע מהצום, וכן אבי הבן, ובצורך גדול אף הסנדק והמוהל, מתענים ולא משלימים. כן יש להוסיף שאף חתתן בשבעת ימי המשתה יכול להקל בצום זה כדינו בצום נדחה. [34] Yad Efraim (Tel Aviv, 1970), no. 29 (p. 206, third numbering). This book is found on Otzar ha-Hokhmah together with many other books from R. Bilitzer. It is worth noting that most of his books on Otzar ha-Hokhmah, including six volumes of responsa, are still in manuscript. It appears that there is no money to prepare these works for publication, and they were therefore put on Otzar ha-Hokhmah in manuscript form. Fortunately, his handwriting is easy to read. [35] The other objection of R. Bilitzer is that Tzom Gedaliah is not on account of the death of Gedaliah per se, but due to what befell the Jewish people in the Land of Israel as a consequence of his death. Even if this is correct, R. Bilitzer’s anger with the reported hasidic flaunting of Tzom Gedaliah apparently caused him to exaggerate somewhat. In his defense of fasting on Tzom Gedaliah, R. Bilitzer states that what happened to the Jews after Gedaliah’s death “was like the destruction of the Temple.” Furthermore, it seems that the fast has more to do with Gedaliah the individual than R. Bilitzer is willing to acknowledge. I say this because some authorities have pointed to leniencies with regard to Tzom Gedaliah precisely because it is a pushed-off fast (i.e., it does not take place on the day of the event it commemorates). This shows the centrality of Gedaliah the individual and the importance of the day of his assassination to the fast. If the entire focus was on what befell the Jewish people after his death, the actual date of his death, and the resulting issue of a pushed-off fast, would not have any real significance. I cannot locate the source at present, but Gerson Cohen, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, had no liking for Tzom Gedaliah. He wondered why a fast was declared in memory of a man he called “a Quisling.” Yet if Gedaliah is to be regarded as a Quisling, does that make Jeremiah, who told the Jewish people to accept Babylonian rule, a “Tokyo Rose”? [36] Moshe Tzvi, “Ha-Tiferet Shlomo” me-Radomsk (Bnei Brak, 1989), p. 182. [37] Yehuda Leib Levin, Beit Kotzk (Jerusalem, 1959), vol. 2, p. 159. [38] See Pinhas Gliksman, Ir Lask ve-Hakhameha (Lodz, 1926), p. 43. [39] There are actually two such volumes. I am referring to the first one that appeared (it has no date), p. 32. [40] Nehar Mitzrayim (Jerusalem, 2007), Hilkhot Tefillin, no. 4 (p. 14). [41] The one exception to this generalization would be the congregants and followers of R. Haim Ovadia. As we have seen in this post, R. Ovadia claims that the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av are not obligatory. Thus, his congregants and followers would not regard eating on these fast days as deviant. As far as I can tell, no other liberal Orthodox rabbis have adopted R. Ovadia’s position.

Book Launch of the Koren Rav Kook Siddur

Book Launch of the Koren Rav Kook Siddur Seforim Blog contributor Rabbi Bezalel Naor has just published a major work, the Koren Rav Kook Siddur. Culled from Rav Kook’s own commentary to the Siddur,Olat Re’iyah, and other writings of Rav Kook, as well as rich anecdotes transmitted by Rav Kook’s son and major disciples, The Koren Rav Kook Siddur speaks to the soul, while it connects us all to the sacred soil of the Holy Land. There will be a book launch on Sunday, January 7, 10:00 AM, at Lincoln Square Synagogue in New York. Rabbi Naor will discuss the new siddur and dialogue with Professor Marc B. Shapiro regarding Rav Kook’s legacy. The event will be moderated by Rabbi Shaul Robinson. All are invited to attend. Here are some sample pages: