SpecialSection

By Chaim Rapoport

The Magnitude of the Mishneh Torah1 of its lucidity and comprehensiveness. In the introduction to the Mishneh woven around the phrases and nuances A play on the words in of the Mishneh . It is still a most Deuteronomy 34:10 gave birth to the Torah, writes that he antici- pated that this work would serve as a fertile ground for the sprouting of chid- following pun: “From Moses to Moses dushei Torah (original rabbinic insights) there did not arise one like Moses.” Till substitute for all other classical works on Jewish law that were composed after the and debate. this very day virtually no other Torah For some, the has sage, both before or after Maimonides Bible. This never came to be, at least not on a universal level. On the other hand, served more as a commentary than as a (11352 -1204), has earned the universal Maimonides may never have envisioned code. Others have also used it as a text acclaim inherent in this well-known the degree to which his code would through which even the layman can, via 7 adage3 that has been engraved on the become a focal point of rabbinic study, daily study, becomeVirtually familiar no with commu- all 8 tombstone traditionally ascribed to albeit not in the manner he had antici- nityareastoday of Torah has adoptedlaw. the Mishneh Maimonides.4 Indeed, if taken on a literal pated. Torah as the last word in Jewish law, yet level, namely that Moses Maimonides its relevance even in the so-called disci- rose to the subliminal heights attained by pline of “practical halachah” is unques- Moses the Biblical lawgiver, this adage tionable. Notwithstanding the preemi- WHAT MOSES DID Mishneh Torah, borders on heresy according to nence of Yosef Karo’s in matters of practical ruling, pres- Maimonides, Rab Maimonides’ own standards.5 On the FOR THE WRITTEN LAW, ent-day authorities are often compelled 350, folio 274. other hand, the saying should not be dis- M AIMONIDES DID All illustrations in this section to return to the legal formulae in the missed as mere hyperbole, for, in a sense, courtesy of the Library of the Jewish FOR THE ORAL TRADITION. Mishneh Torah in order to make their what Moses did for the Written Law, Theological Seminary. case. Maimonides did for the Oral Tradition. The fact that the Mishneh Torah, in No one before or after Maimonides contradistinction to the Shulchan Aruch, has even attempted to codify the entire Even those authorities who severely addresses areas of law that are not opera- gamut of Jewish law and produce a criticized certain aspects of the Mishneh tive nowadays, has somewhat paradoxi- canon of similar stature. Arguably, Torah acknowledged the importance of cally made its present-day significance The two most influential works of Rambam are the Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah towers above this work. Moreover, even those arrived in Egypt, the Karaites were gaining strength over the even more substantial. Most of the laws Mishneh Torah and Moreh Nevuchim. Therefore, in commemo- all other post-Talmudic classics in terms who expressed disdain for some of Rabbinates. By the power of Rambam’s intellect and personality, of ritual impurity, for example, are not of th Maimonides’ theological doctrines and rating his 800 yahrtzeit (he died on Tevet 20, 4965; December that trend was soon reversed. It was as if he was a Divine emissary philosophical works, direct concern today, yet they have enor- 13, 1204), we thought it appropriate to focus on these two monu- sent to confront the enormous challenges of his time. 6 accepted his mous impact on many matters that are of mental masterpieces. Rabbi Rapoport is the author of many scholarly Mishneh Torah as a preeminent halachic immediate relevance. These include the When he passed away, in his seventieth year, in Egypt, both works. His English books include The Messiah But, as we admire Rambam’s literary works, let us not forget code. laws of sukkah, mikvaot and tumat Jews and Arabs mourned for three days. In Jerusalem, the mourners Problem: Berger, the Angel and the Scandal his towering figure as leader of his people. At the time, many Jews And today, some 800 years after kohanim. Invariably, posekim will turn to declared a general fast and read from the tochachah. Additionally, of Reckless Indiscrimination (Ilford, 2002) were presented with the choice of forced conversion or death. the completion of the Mishneh Torah, it the Mishneh Torah for an authoritative they read the haftarah from Samuel, which concluded with the fol- and and Homosexuality: An Rambam provided comfort and chizuk, as demonstrated in his Authentic Orthodox View (London, 2004). remains a preeminent canon of halachah. statement in such areas. Letter to Yemen and his Letter Concerning Shemad. He helped lowing verse: “The glory of has been exiled, for the ark of the The author wishes to thank Professor Hardly a day goes by on which we do Moreover, the Mishneh Torah fills a raise the enormous sums necessary for pidyon shevuyim. When he Lord was taken from us” (1:4:22). Menachem Kellner for his valuable comments not witness the ever-increasing growth of gap in many areas of law that are of on an earlier draft of this essay. commentary and super-commentary

38 JEWISH ACTION Spring 5765/2005 Spring 5765/2005 JEWISH ACTION 39 direct import today. The laws of repen- edition have been published. 15 Be to Israel some thirty years ago. Rabbi tance, for example, are not dealt with in Both the Frankel and Kafich edi- that as it may, bibliographic evidence Frankel brought with him a plan for an the Shulchan Aruch, and consequently tions seek to assist the student in his pur- Kafich and Frankel editions of the seems conclusive toward reading ela, even the Mishneh Torah; primary amongst ambitious project, namely, to produce a or worn away and appeared as a vav. the Mishneh Torah remains the most suit of the correct reading of any given Mishneh Torah provide an important though all printed editions of our text them are the Kafich edition and the new edition of the Mishneh Torah that Kafich and Frankel in authoritative work in this area. Likewise, passage. service for students. 16 Frankel edition. (Rabbi Nachum would be unencumbered by the many Operation: Two Examples contain velo. laws in the Shulchan Aruch that relate to Rabinovitch, dean of Yeshivat Darkei The Frankel Rambam does this in printing mistakes found in the standard A. In a well-known passage in the The difference between velo the status of a heretic would remain Moshe in Israel, has also published a three ways. Some amendments have been editions. The Frankel edition includes Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Melachim 8:11), mechachmeihem and ela mechachmeihem obscure were it not for the formulations number of volumes of Yad Peshutah, a made to the body of the text itself. important commentaries that are not Maimonides writes: has enormous philosophical and halachic in the Mishneh Torah. The debates that commentary on the Mishneh Torah. Others have been provided as alternative available in the standard editions, in Everyone who accepts the seven com- implications. The question as to whether have raged over the height of the requi- Space does not allow me to deal with the readings in a special critical apparatus on addition to mekorot vetziyunim (sources mandments [of Noach] and is careful to do or not Maimonides rejected the notion site partition (mechitzah) between men uniqueness of his contribution here.) the margin of the text called shinuyei and references) and Sefer Hamafteach them is [one] of the chassidei umot hao- of natural law is, to a degree, dependent and women in the synagogue,9 The Kafich edition is the work of nuschaot (variant readings). Others still the lam [righteous persons of the nations of the on which reading is correct: velo or ela. one man, a12 Yemenite scholar named have been relegated to a more extensive, appointment of a woman as the presi- who world] and has a share in the world to The halachic status of Gentiles who do Rabbi Yosef Kafich self-contained, critical work called Yalkut dent of a religious institution10 and the made in 1943 come. This is so if he accepts them and does not believe in the Revelation at Sinai, but and(1917-2000), who dedicated Shinuyei Nuschaot (a collection of variant who nevertheless observe the Noahide legitimacy of the belief in a “resurrected readings), published at the end of each them because God commanded them in the Messiah,” have all revolved around for- himself to translating Torah and made them known to us, Code out of moral conviction, is, in part, and explicating the volume. contingent upon the velo/ela debate. mulations in the Mishneh Torah; the Rabbi Kafich’s edition presents the Shulchan Aruch does not offer directives works of medieval In former times, the reading ela text based on Yemenite manuscripts, in these areas. Torah giants such as mechachmeihem would have been avail- which he considers to be the most accu- Maimonides and VIRTUALLY ALL TEXTS THAT able only to researchers. However, in the rate. He cites an old tradition that relates Textual Challenges and Rav Sa’adiah Gaon WE HAVE INHERITED FROM Kafich and Frankel editions, this reading Contemporary (ca. 1000). He was a that during Maimonides’ lifetime, has been standardized and the old read- sent expert scribes to ANTIQUITY SUFFER FROM AN Contributions prolific writer, and ing, velo mechachmeihem, relegated to the his unique talent in Egypt to copy the Mishneh Torah from ACCUMULATION OF SCRIBAL Virtually all texts that we have marginal notes. Thus the “correct” read- translating from Maimonides’ own manuscripts. From ERRORS inherited from antiquity suffer from an , COPYISTS’ MISTAKES ing, with its far-reaching ramifications, Arabic into Hebrew time to time they returned to Egypt to accumulation of scribal errors, copyists’ AND PRINTERS ’ CARELESSNESS. has been made available to all. has made his rendi- update the changes that Maimonides had mistakes and printers’ carelessness, which B. Difficulties over which many a tion of Maimonides’ himself made. As a result, these manu- M AIMONIDES’ WORKS have been incorporated over the cen- quill have been broken have often been Commentary on the scripts supposedly reflect the mishnah ARE NO EXCEPTION. turies. Maimonides’ works are no excep- resolved by recourse to manuscripts. Mishnah indispensa- acharonah (the last word) of Maimonides. tion. In the case of the Mishneh Torah, For example, in Hilchot Avodah ble for any serious In the introduction to his edition this presents an even greater challenge. It through Moses, our teacher, that Noach had Zarah 4:13, Maimonides writes: study of this work. of Sefer Hamadda, Rabbi Kafich asserts: is axiomatic to all students of the previously been commanded [to observe] Concerning any sanctified animal His last major work We have turned back the wheel 800 Mishneh Torah that this work was written them. However, if he observes them out of within the subverted city (ir hanidachat); was the publication years to its point of origin, and we are pub- with extreme meticulousness and preci- his own rational considerations, he is not a any animal that had been sanctified for of his lifelong labor, lishing, with God’s help, the words of sion. An accurate text is therefore all the resident alien, nor [one] of the righteous of sacrifice on the altar is killed … whereas a new edition of the Maimonides in full as we received them more critical for the student who seeks to the nations of the world, nor of their wise items sanctified for the upkeep of the Mishneh Torah in from his blessed hand, and they appear on appreciate its proper meaning and deci- men (velo mechachmeihem). Temple (bedek haBayit) are redeemed, and twenty-three vol- the page as he wrote them and in his lan- pher the delicate nuances of its phraseol- This is how the passage reads in they are burned (sorfim otam), for umes (each volume guage virtually all printed editions of the Scripture states, “its booty” (shelalah), and ogy. Indeed, it has long been recognized runs from 400 to that obtaining a text of the Mishneh Mishneh Torah, including the editio prin- this excludes the “booty of Heaven” (shelal 800 pages), accom- 13 … this is the first time in 800 years Torah that is as close as possible to the ceps published in Rome in 1480. Shamayim). panied by a massive that Maimonides’ book is published accord- one that was penned by Maimonides Yet, in the Yemenite manuscripts, Rabbi Avraham ben David of commentary, culled from the th ing to the Yemenite manuscripts, by himself is a desideratum of paramount Mishneh Torah, Maimonides, Spain, 15cent., the final sentence of this paragraph reads: Posquieres (Ra’avad) challenged the final works of hundreds of commenta- Yemenite émigrés. However, if he observes them out of importance. MS R1618, folio 255r. ruling of this passage. It appears evident tors. A unique feature of this commen- (The Book of Indices). The latter provides An additional feature of the Kafich 11 his own rational considerations, he is not a from the last sugya in Sanhedrin (112b) tary is its “holistic” approach. On many detailed references for every passage in edition: resident alien, nor of the righteous of the Moreover, in light of the fact that that whatever belonged to the category of occasions Rabbi Kafich endeavors to the Mishneh Torah to commentaries, Just as the text is presented according nations of the world, but (ela) of their shelal Shamayim at the time that the city Maimonides made periodical corrections explain the Mishneh Torah in accordance halachah and responsa works that discuss to the manuscripts, so too, the division of wise men. was condemned is excluded from the to his own Mishneh Torah, the endeavor with Maimonides’ views as expressed in a given passage. Rabbi Frankel employed the halachot is presented according to the commandment (Deut. 13:17) “and you to ascertain whether our Mishneh Torah his other writings, particularly his philo- a team of anonymous Torah scholars who majority of the manuscripts and fragments 14 shall burn the city and its entire spoil in reflects his latest emendations is, likewise,sophical works. worked to produce the beautiful Frankel of manuscripts in my possession. Accordingly, our reading is the fire.” a scholarly imperative. The Frankel edition is the brain- Rambam, which has become a household Let us now explore two random result of a scribal or printing error. How can Maimonides assert, on The quest to determine the authen-child of philanthropist Rabbi Shabse name for all students of the Mishneh examples (one from the first book of the Somehow the alef of ela was mistaken for the one hand, that bedek haBayit comes tic reading of passages in the Mishneh Frankel, who emigrated from Brooklyn Torah. So far, all but one volume of this Mishneh Torah, Sefer Hamadda, and the a vav, making the word read as velo. It is under the rubric of shelal Shamayim, and, Torah has given birth, during the last other from the last book, Sefer Shoftim) indeed quite conceivable that the config- three decades, to several new editions of in which the critical apparatuses in the uration of the alef in ela become defaced

40 JEWISH ACTION Spring 5765/2005 Spring 5765/2005 JEWISH ACTION 41 on the other hand, that such items must Hilchot Beit Habechirah34 and Hilchot the result of a scribal error. 35 ultimately be burned? Centuries of sages Melachim, for example. Rav Kook’s clas- 12. For a biographical sketch on Rabbi Kafich, see have toiled to reconcile this halachah in 27 sic HaAretz (Jerusalem, 1937) on 42 JA Matis Greenblatt, “Rabbi Yosef Kafach: A Life grounds, the testimony of Maimonides’ the day on which Maimonides’ own (winter 2000): 53-54. More the Mishneh Torah with the authoritative 22 vetziyunim in this edition also seem to Hilchot Shemittah Veyovel, as indeed all Fulfilled,” Jewish Action own son, Rabbi Avraham, about a correc- The Book of Indices, one of the motto will prevail: “Accept the truth recently, Rabbi Kafich’s granddaughter, Avivit Levy, has sugya in the . Indeed, some very have been affected by an unexplainable other works of Rav Kook,36 Notes published Holeich Tamim: Morashto, Chayav Ufoalo tionAlthough his father Rabbi had made Kafich in citesthe text hun- of highlights of the Frankel edition, has is ignored, as from whoever says it.” ingenious solutions have been suggested. dreds of different commentaries, he does developedbias and overprocess the ofyears. selectivity. The indices to 1. For more details and sources regarding mattersShel HaRav Yosef Kafich (Israel, 2003). the code. are the many works of Rav Soloveitchik, discussed in the first section of this article, see Isadore13. Rabbi Kafich acknowledges the following: Yet, if one accepts the manuscript not seem to have made any use of the Sefer Zemanim, first published in 1975, whose contribution to the Brisker analy- Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides It is true that there are minor variations among the reading, made available to the reader of commentaries that have emerged from contain references to no more than 300 sis of the Mishneh Torah amounts to a (Connecticut, 1980). See also his “Maimonides’ Image:manuscripts, changes which naturally occur as uninten- An Essay on His Unique Stature in Jewish History”tional sprinklings emitted from the quill pen of the copyist, the Frankel and Kafich editions, the the so-called Brisker school of lomdus.23 works; even the well-known Seder voluminous literature. 37 question becomes a non-sequitur. (Hebrew), Asufot 10 (1997): 9-35. which require close attention to detail. Nevertheless, I Evidently, their analytical approach was Mishneh of Rabbi Binyamin Ze’ev Wolf This does not mean to say that the 2. Or 1138; see Shlomo Zalman Havlin, “Thenoted these, but not in a consistent manner, because I According to some manuscripts, foreign to him, and he probably did not HaLevi Boskowitz (1740-1818) is not editors shy away from all “controversy.” Date of Maimonides’ Birth,” Da’at 15 (1985): 67-79.don’t spend time on full versus short spellings and so forth, Maimonides wrote [not sorfim otam but] 3. On occasion it has been used in praise of andother I generally followed the majority. consider practitioners of Brisker lomdus referred to; Sefer Kinyan, published in The notorious responsa forgery, namely sorfim otah. greats. See, for example, Rabbi Moshe Isserles (ca. 14. This is also the reading of this passage as cited 17 1990, enumerates some 1,000 volumes This changes the purport of to be legitimate explicators of the Saul Berlin’s Besamim Rosh,38 is included 1525-1572), Teshuvot HaRema (Cracow, 1640), no.in Teshuvot 67. Maharam Alshakar 117 and endorsed by that are referred to, and Sefer HaMadda, See also Byron L. Sherwin, Sparks Amidst the Ashes:Rav The Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook (1865-1935), the entire sentence. In English the law Mishneh Torah. in the index, and the Dor Revi’i Rabbi Frankel’s ambition to pro- published in 2001, contains references to Spiritual Legacy of Polish Jewry (New York, 1997),Iggerot 36. Re’iyah 1 (Jerusalem, 1961), no. 89. (The text may now be rendered as: “Items sancti- (Chiddushim on Chulin [Klausenburg, 4. See also Rabbi Moshe Alshakar (1466-1552),cited in Rabbi Yosef ben Shem Tov [ca. 1400-ca.1460], over 1,800 works! Unfortunately, virtual- fied for the upkeep of the Temple are duce an error-free edition has not yet 1921]) of Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner Teshuvot Maharam Alshakar (Sabionetta, 1554), no.Kevod Elokim [Furth,1556], 29a, reads aval, which is a ly no bibliographical details are provided synonym for ela.) See also, Encyclopedia Talmudit 3, p. redeemed, and it [i.e., the city] is been realized. The editors’ claim to have (1856-1924) is made welcome despite 117. restored the original text of the Mishneh for the works cited, and, as a result, trac- 5. His Thirteen Principles of Faith include the362, affir- n. 465. For a discussion of this textual problem burned.” The difference of a single letter, the ardent Zionism and other controver- mation that no one will ever reach the “perfection”see of Eugene Korn, “Gentiles, The World to Come, and Torah—“the one penned by our ing the references to some of the more technically dependent on two small holes sial views of its author. 39 Moses. However, this may refer particularly to Moses’Judaism: The Odyssey of a Rabbinic Text,” Modern in the final mem of “otam” (one at the Master”—contradicts their own admis- obscure volumes can be quite a tiresome prophetic power. Judaism 14 (1994): 265-287, and the references in the It is sometimes difficult to under- notes thereon. See, also, Menachem Kellner, “Steven bottom and one at the side), has provid- task. 6. For example, the (1720-1797), who stand the parameters for inclusion in (in his glosses to Yoreh Deah 179:13) condemnedSchwarzschild, Moses Maimonides, and ‘Jewish Non- ed a simple solution to the problem. The editors seemed to have adopt- Jews,’” Moses Maimonides (1138-1204): His Religious, Frankel’s “gallery of the great.” The con- Maimonides as having been misled by “philosophy,” Thus, the onset of the manuscript era, ed an unwritten policy that, with few which, he said, led him to reject demonology. Scientifical, and Philosophical Wirkungsgeschichte in tentious VaYoel Moshe (New York, 1959), Different Cultural Contexts, eds. Goerge K. Hasselhoff and the restorative textual criticism of exceptions, 7. See, for example, Rabbi Meir Poppers (seven- 28 an anti-Zionist polemic written by Rabbi teenth century), Ohr Tzaddikim (Hamburg, 1690),and Otfried Fraisse (Ergon: Wuerzburg, 2004), 587- the new editions of the Mishneh Torah, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE works whose authors are Yoel Teitelbaum (1887-1979) is referred 22:19. See also Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson606. have provided, in certain instances, an FRANKEL EDITION HAS BEEN, still alive are not referred to. Thus, for a (1902-1994), Likkutei Sichot 27 (New York, 1989), 15. See Korn, p. 273 and J. David Bleich, random example, the indices to Hilchot to, whereas the famous Derishat Zion 229ff. “Judaism and Natural Law,” The Jewish Law Annual 7, alternative to the intricate pilpulistic MOST UNFORTUNATELY, Melachim ignore the thorough commen- (Lyck, 1862) of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch 8. The obvious exception to this rule being somep. 9, n. 15, who attributes the reading ela to the method of explaining difficult passages in Bodleian manuscript [!] and argues that: HIJACKED BY POLITICAL Kalischer (1795-1874) is apparently livre Yemenite Jews, who, I believe, continue to this day to the Mishneh Torah. taries of Rabbis Yehudah Gershuni,29 use the Mishneh Torah as a practical code. there is one cogent reason for assuming the published 18 non gratis, presumably on account of his PARTISANSHIP, LEADING David Yitzchak Man30 and Gershon 9. See Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Lulav 8:12; Hilchottext to be accurate and the Bodleian manuscript to be cor- unconventional views regarding the Beit Habechirah 5:9; Perush HaMishnah Sukkah 5:2;rupt. It is virtually an axiom of halachic hermeneutics TO THE DENIGRATION OF Arieli. 31 Needless to say the contributions Horizons Ahead restoration of the sacrificial order before Middot 2:5. For a recent discussion of the Mishnehthat early authorities in general, and Maimonides in par- Notwithstanding the tremendous GEDOLEI of Rabbis Kafich and Rabinovitch are Torah’s role in the mechitzah controversy, see Rabbiticular, did not employ unnecessary verbiage. The phrase YISRAEL. the Messianic era. velo mehakhamehem serves to negate Natural Law doc- not mentioned. 40 (It is, however, note- Baruch Oberlander’s comprehensive article “Din achievements of either Rabbi Kafich or Mechitzah Hamafseket Bein Anashim Lenashim,” Pardestrines and hence Maimonides would have had reason for the Frankel team, neither of the editions Moreover, neither the death of the worthy that Rabbi Chaim Nathanzohn’s 13 (Elul 5764): 95-150, esp. the notes andits inclusion.ref- The phrase ela mehakhamehem has neither is beyond criticism. author nor the quality of his scholarship Avodah Tamah [Altona, 1872], which is erences on pp. 102-107. halachic nor philosophical import and would constitute an sion that “generally speaking, we have irrelevant interpolation. Rabbi Kafich works on the guarantees that his work will gain entry virtually a page-by-page rebuttal of Rabbi 10. See Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 1:5 and avoided making any significant changes J. David Bleich, “Women on Synagogue Boards,” See, however, Rav Kook, Iggerot Re’iyah, 100, who assumption that the Yemenite manu- into the Frankel index. The significant Kalischer’s Derishat Zion, is referenced, suggests an elaborate “omni-significant” reason for to the body of the text, that have [hereto- Contemporary Halakhic Problems 2 (New Jersey, 1983), scripts are the most reliable and that they contributions of Rabbi Yaakov Reines thereby leading the genuine researcher to 256ff. Maimonides’ addition, ela mechachmeihem. fore] not been made in any of the print- 11. It is noteworthy that the halachic debate 16. The Frankel edition claims that all (accessible) reflect Maimonides’ final word, his (1839-1915)32 the “tabooed” book, albeit indirectly). ed editions of the Mishneh Torah.” and, more recently, Rabbi regarding the position of the bimah in the sanctuarymanuscripts of of the Mishneh Torah have the reading ela mahadura batra. Eminent scholars, such Isaac Herzog (1888-1959)33 have also The People of the Book will forever the synagogue revolves, to a large degree, around mechachmeihem.the It is therefore surprising that Bleich 24 (previous note) asserts that “most manuscripts” contain as Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Havlin, have been refused admission by the Frankel be indebted to those who have dedicated wording of Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tefillah 11:3: “One challenged this assumption on scholarly themselves to deciphering the manu- makes a bimah in the middle (be’emtza) of the syna-the reading velo mechachmeihem! Thus, in Hilchot Nizkei Mamon 4:4, the “selection committee.” gogue for the Torah reader to stand on … so that all 17. See, however, Rabbi Yitzchak Sheilat, Rambam grounds. scripts of the Mishneh Torah and who 19 Frankel edition has preserved the “tradi- It is obvious that the Frankel edi- can hear.” (See the sources cited in Encyclopedia Meduyak (Maale Adumim, 2004); Hilchot Avodah tional” reading, notwithstanding have provided new tools for the apprecia- Talmudit 3, entry “Bimah,” 112.) Yet, according toZarah, ibid., n. 4. Rabbi Kafich’s boldness has allowed tion has been, most unfortunately, 18. With regard to posekim who issued rulings Maimonides’ own testimony that the text tion of Maimonides’ great edifice. Let us Oxford Manuscript Huntington 80 (which includes him to dismiss the Letters of Maimonides hijacked by political partisanship, leading Maimonides’ own signature, certifying that the bookbased on Maimonides’ mahadura kama, original text, as “we” have it is corrupt.25 hope that the shortcomings and lacunas (not having access to Maimonides’ final recension), see to the Sages of Lunel (in which he explains to the denigration of gedolei Yisrael. The was proofread and corrected according to his own numerous chiddushim of Rav Avraham of the above-mentioned editions will be copy), a facsimile of which is available in The Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Yein Malchut 2 certain halachot in the Mishneh Torah) as The editors’ decisions concerning (New York, 1987), 648-651. Yitzchak HaKohen Kook (1865-1935), addressed in the near future. Authorized Version of the Code of Maimonides, Mishneh the work of forgery.20 Rabbi Kafich’s which changes to incorporate into the 41 Torah: Madda, Ahavah, ed. Shlomo Zalman Havlin 19. See Havlin in his introduction to The Rabbi Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik Authorized Version. See also his brief article, “An “unilateral” decision in this regard is, main text, which to place in the margin The Jewish people are blessed with (Jerusalem, 1997), the critical word “be’emtza” may be (1903-1993) and Rabbi Menachem arguably, over-presumptuous.21 and which to relegate to the Yalkut many scholars who possess the requisite Shinuyei Nuschaot are somewhat arbi- Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher His attitude towards some of the skills and acumen to produce a whole- trary. There are even differences in this Rebbe (1902-1994), are not referred to earlier commentaries on the Mishneh some edition of the Mishneh Torah, one regard between the various prints of the even once. The editors of the Frankel Torah may strike some as being unduly which will also be free of arbitrary dis- Frankel edition, as the discerning eye willedition feign oblivion of the landmark dismissive, if not discourteous. In at least crimination against, and denigration of, notice. essays of the Lubavitcher Rebbe on one place, he rejects, on dubious 26 On occasion the mekorot tzaddikim and chachamim. May we merit

42 JEWISH ACTION Spring 5765/2005 Spring 5765/2005 JEWISH ACTION 43 Autograph of the Rambam (Bodleian MS 577),” Alei Sefer 18 (1996), 171ff, (partic- ularly nn. 4, 9 and 10) and Rabbi Sheilat, in his preface to Rambam Meduyak, sec. 6- 7, pp. 12-15. 20. See Rabbi Kafich, “She’elot Chachmei Lunel Uteshuvot HaRambam: Kelum Mekoriot Hen?,” Sefer Zikaron LeHarav Yitzchak Nissim, ed. Meir Benayahu (Jerusalem, 1985), 235-252; Rabbi Sheilat’s rejoinder to Rabbi Kafich, “Klum Teshuvot HaRambam LeChachmei Lunel Mezuyafot Hen?”, ibid., 253-256 and Rabbi Chiddushim Ubiurim BeShas [Ubedivrei HaRambam] 1 (Jerusalem, 1979); vol. 2 Kafich’s response, ibid., 257. (New York, 1985) and vol. 3 (New York, 1987). 21. See Havlin, Alei Sefer 12 (1986): 14; David Henshke, “HaRambam 36. See, in relation to the omission of Rav Kook, the censorial remarks of Aryeh Kimefaresh Divrei Atzmo,” Sefunot 23 (2003): 124, n. 34. Stern in his Petach Davar to the Mafteach Leperushim al Mishneh Torah 22. See Rabbi Kafich’s commentary on Hilchot Umatzah 5:2. LehaRambam, 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1995) and the evidently restrained rebuke of Rabbi Regarding this matter, see at length, Rabbi Baruch Oberlander, “Iyun Bemahadurot Yonah Emanuel in his review essay on the Frankel edition of Sefer Zeraim in Hachadashot shel HaMishneh Torah lehaRambam,” Ohr Yisrael, no. 23, (New York, Hama’ayan 31, no. 3: p. 49. It is noteworthy that other gedolei Yisrael who are 5761), 215ff. referred to in theKovetz Frankel Chiddushei indices, forTorah example, (a collection Rabbi ofShlomo chiddushim Zalmanthat Auerbach 23. On this method, see Norman Solomon, The Analytic Movement: Hayyimhad previously(1900-1995), been published cite Rav in Kook’s rabbinic writings journals); with Chiddushei great respect, HaGram even awe. VehaGrid See, for example, Soloveitchik and his Circle (Atlanta, 1993), and the relevant studies cited in(New the bibli- York,his 1993) Ma’adanei and IggerotEretz (Jerusalem HaGrid HaLevi 1944; (Jerusalem, 1972), preface 2001). and The chap. latter 1. three ography thereon; Marc B. Shapiro, “Review Essay: The Brisker Method volumes also include37. His chiddushim works includeof his Shiurim father, LezecherRabbi Moshe Abba Mori,Soloveichik zt”l 1 (Jerusalem,(1879- 1983); Reconsidered,” Tradition 31, no. 3 (spring 1997) and, more recently, Rabbi1941). Moshehvol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1985); Lichtenstein, “What Hath Brisk Wrought: The Brisker Derekh Revisited,” The Torah38. Saul Berlin (1740-1794) first published this fraudulent work in 1793. See U-Madda Journal 9 (2000): 1–18. See also Rabbi Doniel Schreiber, “The BriskerReuven Margaliyot, “Rabbi Saul Berlin, the Forger of the Book Besamim Rosh,” Derekh Today: Are We Pursuing the ‘Path’ Envisioned by Reb Hayyim?”, WisdomAreshet (1944): 411-418. from All My Teachers, eds. Jeffrey Saks and Susan Handelman (Jerusalem, 2003).39. See David Glasner, “Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner, The Dor Revi’i,” 24. See Y. S. Spiegel, Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book: ScholarsTradition and their32, no. 1 (winter 1998): 40-56 and Rabbi Ya’akov Elman, “Rabbi Moses Annotations (Ramat Gan, 1996), 561 and Rabbi Sheilat, Rambam Meduyak,Samuelsec. 9, Glasner: p. The Oral Torah,” Tradition 25, no. 3 (spring 1991): 63-69. 17. 40. See Jody Myers, Seeking Zion: Modernity and Messianic Activism in the 25. See Teshuvot HaRambam, ed. Blau, no. 433, cited in the margin ofWritings the of Tsevi Hirsch Kalischer (Oregon, 2003), 89-96; 211ff and esp. 214, n. 146. Frankel Rambam, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon, ibid. 41. Insofar as the variant readings and the restoration of the “authentic” text is 26. See Havlin, Yeshurun 5: p. 716, n. 69; Rabbi Yoel Katan, HaMa’ayanconcerned,44:1: we are pleased to note the most recent contribution of Rabbi Sheilat in p. 79 and n. 4. his Rambam Meduyak (cited in n. 17 above). With regard to the indices, the authors 27. The marginal notes, “mekorot vetziyunim,” on the first paragraph ofof theMafteach first Leperushim al Mishneh Torah LehaRambam (cited in n. 36) have success- section of the Mishneh Torah provide a good example of this. Maimonides fullycom- redressed some of the faults of the Frankel mafteach, although their own mences Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah with the statement: “It is the most basic ofmafteach basic leaves much to be desired in both content and structure. The prefatory principles . . . to know that there is a First Being [namely God] who bringsremarks into of the editors indicate that they may yet produce a more wholesome work. being all other beings.” The “mekorot” (p. 34) refer the reader to Maimonides’ Sefer42. Intro. to Shemonah Perakim. See also Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Kiddush HaMitzvot where, in the same context, the word leyda is substituted with leha’amin.Hachodesh 17:24. Mekorot informs the reader that leha’amin is a translation of Maimonides’ Arabic term itakad. “All the translators of Sefer HaMitzvot and the Perush HaMishnah have translated this word [itakad] as leha’amin.” This assertion simply flies in the face of the facts. Rabbi Kafich, in his edition of

Sefer HaMitzvot (Jerusalem, 1971), trans- lates itikad as “know,” and Rabbi Chaim Heller (1878-1960), in his edition of the Sefer HaMitzvot (New York, 1946), n. 1, also points out that the term itakad con- notes knowledge rather than belief. The case of leha’amin vs. leyda serves as an example of another “Frankel phe- nomenon,” namely that the various editors evidently do not engage in sufficient dia- logue. For in the Frankel edition of Sefer HaMitzvot (published some six years earlier than the Sefer HaMadda!), the compilers of the “mekorot vetziyunim” (p. 207) state explicitly that leha’amin is not an accurate translation of the Arabic and suggest that an alternative rendition of the Arabic itikad would be leyda! 28. Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky is one such exception. His Derech Emunah on Sefer Zeraim is quoted numerous times. 29. Mishpat HaMeluchah (New York, 1950). Rabbi Gershuni passed away in 2000 after the Frankel edition of Sefer Shoftim was published (in 1999). Yet his Chukat HaPesach on Hilchot Korban Pesach (New York, 1955)—published with a haskamah (endorsement) of the renowned Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer (1870- 1954)—is also not on record in the Frankel edition of Sefer Korbanot, published in 2003. 30. Be’er Miriam, 3 vols. (Kfar Chassidim, 1981-1984). 31. Torat HaMelech (Jerusalem, 1958; 1984). 32. His Edut BeYaakov (Jerusalem, 1951) contains many chiddushim on Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Edut. 33. For example, his Torat Haohel: Shiurim al HaRambam, Hilchot Sanhedrin (Jerusalem, 1948). 34. These have been collected and published in Rambam Hilchot Beit Habechirah im Chiddushim Ubiurim (New York, 1990). 35. For some of these, and many other chiddushim on the Mishneh Torah, see his

44 JEWISH ACTION Spring 5765/2005