The Unintended Perils of Plagiarizing

While we have previously discussed several instances of plagiarism, I wanted to discuss one more which is interesting in its irony. Originally printed in Vienna, in 1820, Hut HaMeshulash b’Sha’arim, was reprinted in 1998. This sefer is actually three-seforim-in-one arranged based on the order of the parshiyot. The three are from a grandfather, father and son. They are, respectively, Sha’ar Asher by R. Asher Lemel HaLevi, chief rabbi of Eisenstadt; Sha’ar HaMayim by his son-in-law, R. Jehiel Mihel, also the chief rabbi of Eisenstadt; and Sha’ar HaKoton by R. Asher’s grandson and R. Jehiel’s son, R. Moshe, the chief rabbi of Tzeilheim. This book was published by R. Moshe and has haskamot from the Hatam Sofer, R. Tzvi Hirsch Brody, and R. Dovid Deitch, which all offer extensive praise of these works. As I mentioned, this sefer was reprinted in a nice edition in 1998 which includes a newly set type, citations, an index, as well as a short introduction. The introduction notes that this reprint is the third printing of the sefer, with the second reprint in Munkatch, in 1931. While this is technically correct, a portion of the sefer was reprinted, but under a different name a different author.

In 1910 a similar family type sefer was published in Warsaw. As with the Hut HaMeshulash, it contains multiple commentaries from relatives. In this case, the Amudei Yonason by R. Jonathan Eybeschütz and the Amudei Shmuel by R. Nachman Shmuel Miodoser, a descendant of R. Jonathan Eybeschütz. The Amudei Yonason is claimed to be from a manuscript, however, it is R. Nachman’s commentary which we will focus on. Both of these seforim have rather nice haskamot from R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski, R. Eliezer Rabinowich, R. Eliyahu Meisels as well as R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It seems that R. Nachman actually had a more difficult time securing R. Chaim Soloveitchik’s haskamah due to R. Nachman’s first piece in his sefer. In that piece, R. Nachman ties the controversy of the earth or sky being created first, to that of Moshe and Betzalal about the construction of the mishkan and use it to explain a Midrash. R. Chaim said that such a interpretation is inappropriate, as according to R. Nachman’s explanation there are opinions which argue with Moshe and no one can argue with Moshe. [It would appear that R. Chaim took the ani ma’amins literally although, as we have recently seen at the Seforim blog, such a formulation has little support and even the Rambam’s position is not unopposed.] R. Nacham attempted to assuage R. Chaim Soloveitchik’s concern by pointing out the Hafla’ah has a similar explanation with the same end result – someone disagreeing with Moshe. R. Chaim Soloveitchik was unsatisfied with this justification so R. Nachman agreed to remove that explanation. But, when R. Nachman reached Warsaw, that page had already been printed thus, R. Nachman instead of removing the piece, included the above story to let R. Chaim’s position be known. [Reproduced below – you can click on any of the images for a larger version.]

R. Chaim Soloveitchik’s Haskama and R. Nachman’s Disclaimer

R. Nachman attempted to justify his position by pointing to earlier authorities who said similar ideas; however, R. Nachman could have pointed to an earlier authority which said the exact same thing. The vast majority of R. Nachman’s commentary is taken almost word for word from the Sha’ar HaKoton, including the controversial explanation. It appears this plagiarism went undetected as the book was reprinted three years later in 1913 (and even more approbations appear which due to their late arrival were not included in the first edition) and then again in Bnei Brak in 1946. R. Nachman died in 1948 in Bnei Brak. From the Amudei Yonason the Original – Sha’ar HaKoton

Benjamin Richler — “Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library: NEJ Redux”

Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library: NEJ Redux By Benjamin Richler

In a previous post at the Seforim blog, Shnayer Z. Leiman reviewed New Encyclopaedia Judaica (NEJ) and I should like to add a few observations from my admittedly narrow perspective as a student of Hebrew manuscripts and former director of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM), situated in the Manuscripts and Archives Wing on the ground floor of the Jewish National and University Library, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The main entry on “Hebrew Manuscripts” consists of a verbatim reprinting of the entry by D.S. Loewinger z”l and E. Kupfer z”l in the first edition of EJ followed by a reprint of A. Katsch’s article on “Hebrew Manuscripts in Russia” from the EJ Yearbook of 1977/78. The article by Katsch is disproportionately longer than the main entry on Hebrew Manuscripts, and a competent editor should have noticed that. No attempt was made to revise or update the entries and no errors were corrected. Any reviewer can easily criticize the choice of material included in the entry and the material omitted, the number of words devoted to a particular aspect of the subject and the lack of attention to other aspects, and it is not my attention to do so (though I just did so). However, some obsolete passages should never have escaped the eye of an editor even if he had just perused the entry casually. It is ludicrous to read, for instance, the following statement in the Loewinger-Kupfer entry, accurate as it may have been in the first edition:

The Institute for the Photography of Hebrew Manuscripts was founded in 1950 by the Israel Government (Ministry of Education and Culture) in order to enable a comparative processing and registration of all possible material. In 1962 the institute was placed under the authority of the Hebrew University and became affiliated with the National and University Library. During its 20 years of activity the Institute has photographed – mainly in the form of microfilms – approximately half of the collections of manuscripts and fragments scattered throughout the libraries of the world.

‘During its 20 years of activity’!! Does the entry have to stress that it is valid only until 1970? In fact, the Institute, known for almost 40 years as the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM), and not as it appears in the entry, now has photographed over 90% of the extant Hebrew manuscripts in the world. The editors of the entry on the “Jewish National and University Library” updated the statistics concerning the number of printed volumes preserved in the Library in 2005, but recorded that in 1971 the Institute of Microfilms of Hebrew Manuscripts had photocopies of 25,000 manuscripts neglecting to note that by 2005 the figure had surpassed 75,000.

The entry on Hebrew Manuscripts includes a list of the major collections and their catalogues. No catalogue published after 1970 is included. No attempt was made to update the list. No recent literature at all was included, no books by Malachi Beit-Arié, by Colette Sirat, by yours truly or anyone else. No mention of the publications of the Hebrew Palaeography Project (which is not mentioned at all in the NEJ, if the search engine can be trusted; see below). However, the bibliography does include the following gem: “D.S. Loewinger and E. Kupfer, List… Parma Library (in preparation)”. Not only was that “List” never published but the 2001 catalogue of the “Hebrew Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma” prepared by the staff of the IMHM was not mentioned, neither in the main entry nor in the entry on Parma copied verbatim from EJ where only the 1803 catalogue by De Rossi is mentioned. On the other hand, we can be relieved that the entry on the “Bodleian Library” does include a reference to the Supplement of Addenda and Corrigenda to vol. I of Neubauer’s catalogue (Oxford, 1994) also compiled mainly by the staff of the IMHM and the Hebrew Palaeography Project.

Fortunately, the article on the Cairo Genizah has been rewritten by a team of competent experts and supplies up to date information and the article on Illuminated manuscripts includes an updated addendum.

Epilogue: 1. Using the search engine to compile this report has revealed a fatal flaw. As the reader may notice the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM) was mentioned in at least two entries. However, a search for the words “Institute” and “Manuscripts” appearing together in the “Basic Search” turns up only one reference to the IMHM in the entire NEJ – by its correct name this time – in the article on Liturgy. A similar search in the “Advanced Search” engine turns up three references in the articles on Liturgy, Genizah and the Institute for the Research of Medieval Hebrew Poetry. Somehow, it missed the two entries we noted (Hebrew manuscripts and Jewish National Library). So, caveat lector let the reader beware when using the search engine.

2. After reviewing the entries on Hebrew manuscripts it is obvious that in some or many of the entries in NEJ , no attempt was made to update or revise the bibliographies. Some entries in the encyclopedia do include “Add. Bibliography,” but in other entries the bibliographies are valid only until ca. 1970. Since 1970 digital resources have advanced so far that with minimal effort a few moments devoted to searching the Jewish National Library’s Aleph catalogue and/or RAMBI or similar online catalogues in other institutions could reveal most relevant publications that appeared since 1970. In order to determine the scholarly value of the entries in NEJ one must carefully check not only the text of the entries to see if they were not copied verbatim from EJ, but also the bibliographies to see if they include any post-1972 publications.

The Besamim Rosh’s Son What Can Be Gleaned from an Introduction

Most books, and Hebrew books are no exception, contain introductions. The introduction may lay out the author’s vision for the book, or describe the motivation for publication. Additionally, it is not uncommon to find material which has little to nothing to do with the work which follows. One example, is the introduction to the third edition of the work Or Enayim.[1] This work by R. Shlomo b. Abraham Peniel discusses “the fine attributes of the Jews and the good that is awaiting for them in the world to come.” It is divided into three parts, the first part discusses the heavens and their effects on the Jews, the second part discusses the Creation story, and the final part discusses the Avot. In 1806, this work was republished with an introduction from the editor of this edition. The editor was R. [Yisrael] Aryeh Leib ben Saul, the Chief Rabbi of Stettin.[2] The editor was the son of R. Saul Berlin, the latter who is perhaps most well-know for editing/authoring the Teshuvot Besamim Rosh. (For earlier discussions of the Besamim Rosh at the Seforim blog, see here.) The introduction contains some unusual items. It mentions Thomas Paine, Aristotle and other Greek philosophers, as well as the French Revolution and the bloody aftermath.[3] He specifically vocalises the name Abarbanel with that reading.[4] As is common in introductions, R. Aryeh Leib includes a brief history of his upbringing and eduction. He notes that he studied with both his grandfathers, R. Tzvi Hirsh Levin the Chief Rabbi of Berlin, as well as his maternal grandfather. Additionally, R. Aryeh Leib studied with R. Pinchas Horowitz, the author of theHaflah .

While all the above is interesting in its own right, the more interesting and important portion of the introduction discusses R. Areyeh Leib’s father, R. Saul. R. Aryeh Leib notes that his father left numerous works in manuscript and specifically lists them. R. Saul himself also discusses his unpublished works in his last will and testament – although only to issue a warning that “all of [his] writings, however… shall be forbidden to anybody to take even one leaf and to read it. Everything shall be left in paper, be sealed up and sent to my above-named father or to my children…” R. Saul doesn’t provide any other information about these “writings.” R. Aryeh Leib, however, discusses them in detail. First, he explains his father left notes and thought on the entire Sha’s titled Perek Hasheg Yad. The other titles, also on GeFeS, include Deh Lachmo, Resisi Lilah, as well as Ateres Zekanim on various aggadot. Finally, R. Saul left “his piskei dinim.”

R. Aryeh Leib continues that his father left extensive notes on a work, Or Zarua of R. Isaac of Vienna. At this time the Or Zarua had not been published, instead, the Or Zarua although well-known, wasn’t actually first published until 1862 and then only a portion of it. R. Aryeh Leib wanted to publish this work, it seems with his father’s notes.[5] As R. Aryeh Leib was well aware of the controversy his father prior works had caused, he took a proactive stance and sent the manuscript to two persons, R. Chanina Lipman Meisels of Peiterkov and R. Tzvi hirsch David HaLevi of Krakow. R. Aryeh Leib was fearful of “the kat ha’tzvoim who are unfortunately very common in this generation, they always treat as suspect the holy works as perhaps they will find something objectionable in these works, and [when they locate something they claim is objectionable] they stir up the populace with this.”

R. Aryeh Leib never was able to publish the Or Zarua, however, his discussion enabled one scholar[6] to cast serious doubts on the traditional story associated with the discovery and printing of the Or Zarua. Specifically, in the introduction to the Or Zarua, there is a description of the travels of the manuscript, and the relevant part states “[i]n earlier days this beautiful book used to be the proud possession of the author of the work Besamim Rosh, R. Saul, son of Tzvi Hirsch, Chief Rabbi of Berlin, as it is written on the cover of the [manuscript]…. After [R. Saul’s] death the book was sent to another city … by ship over the sea, and the ship and everything that was in it was wrecked, and the manuscript that was inside went under the sea and the waves went over it … God … protected this book and prevented it from going down to the depths and saved it from destruction. He sent a stream through the mighty waters a brought the book to the border … and led a fisherman to the place. He saw the book, lifted it from the sea and brought it to a certain Jew.” From there it was transfered to another and was then published. While this story makes for good reading, based upon the introduction in the Or Enayim it seems that it is not true. Contrary to the story, R. Saul did not send the manuscript only to have the ship wreck – instead, as R. Aryeh Leib says, he received the book from his grandfather, R. Yitzhak Yosef Toemim who R. Saul had given it to. It was not then lost in the sea, rather, as we have seen, in 1806 R. Areyeh Leib had it and was hoping to publish it.

What is true from the above story, and is confirmed in part by R. Aryeh Leib, is that the manuscript which the Or Zarua was published from, contains the notes of R. Saul. These notes have never been published although the manuscript is still extant in the Bibliotheca Rosenthalina in Amsterdam and is available at the JNUL (Mss. R. R. Film No. F 10455).

Notes: [1] On the title page of this edition it states that it is the second edition of this work. This is incorrect. The Or Enayim was first published in Istanbul in approximately 1520. It was then published for a second time in Cremona in 1557. In 1806, we reach the edition discussed above. Thereafter, in 1967, a photomechanical reproduction of the Cremona edition was published together with R. Emmanuel Benevento’s Leviat Chen. [It is worth noting that although the Leviat Chen is also a photomechanical reproduction of the earlier, and only, 1557 Mantua edition, for some reason there are two pages missing at the end. Specifically, these two pages are a dirge bemoaning the 1554 burning of the Talmud in Ancona.]

[2] On the title page his name appears as Aryeh Leib – as the two approbations address him, while he signs the introduction with the additional Yisrael Aryeh Leib. R. Aryeh Leib had a rather colorful life, including converting to Christianity later in life. According to some, however, he repented and returned to Judaism. For more on Aryeh Leib, see Landshuth, Toldot Anshe ha-shem u’Polosum (Berlin, 1884) pp. 109-110. Landshuth cites E. Rosenthal, Yode’a Sefer p. 16 no. 93 as the source for the story that Aryeh Leib converted and that at the end of his life returned to Judaism. R. Saul also had a daughter, Hena, who married R. Abraham Hertz and they had a son, Saul.

[3] These persons and events are included to highlight the distinction, according to R. Aryeh Leib, between Jews and non- Jews. He claims that although one may find wisdom in non- Jewish as well as Jewish sources, in order to fully appreciate wisdom one can only do so through the study of the Torah and fulfilling its commandments. Thus, Duschinsky’s conjecture that R. Areyeh Leib mention was “to impress the reader with his profound knowledge in all subjects,” has little basis. See Charles Duschinsky, “The Rabbinate of the Great Synagogue, London, from 1756-1842,” Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 9:3/4 (January – April, 1919): 383.

[4] See S. Z. Leiman, “Abarbanel and the Censor,” Journal of Jewish Studies (1968): 49, n. 1.

[5] Although Schrijver, see next note p. 78 n. 63, alleges there is “no clear textual evidence to support [the] assumption that Aryeh Leib wanted to include his father’s notes in a printed edition.” It seems from the fact R. Aryeh Leib went so far out of his way to defend the work against possible detractors I don’t think it far fetched to understand that the detractors would question the work of his father. The above noted works are not the only works of R. Saul, R. Saul himself mentions other works he authored, none of which were published, in his notes Kasa D’harsena. For a complete list see Landshuth, supra n. 2, pp. 105-106.

[6] Emile G.L. Schrijver, “Some Light on the Amsterdam and London Manuscripts of Isaac ben Moshs of Vienna’s Or Zarua’,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 75:3 (Autumn 1993): 53-82, esp. 73-82 where he includes an appendix on “The Story of the Shipwreck of the Rosenthaliana Or Zarua’ and its Demystification.”

Iggeres Ha’Mussar: The Ethical Will of a Bibliophile

Iggeres Ha’Mussar: The Ethical Will of a Bibliophile by Eliezer Brodt A few days ago, the sefer Iggeres Ha’mussar from R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon, was reprinted. What follows is a short review of this beautiful work.

R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon was born in 1120. Not much is known about him but from this work one learns a few more things about him, he was a doctor, close to the Ba’al Ha’meor (pp. 50, 63). R. Yehudah appears to have been working on another work (see p. 46) although it is unclear whether this work was a full work. He also loved his only son R. Shmuel Ibn Tibbon very much and wanted him to succeed him as a doctor and translator of seforim -as Yehudah Ibn Tibbon was famous for his own translations. R. Yehuda ibn Tibbon’s son, Shmuel, refers to his father as “father of translators” as he translated many classics, among them, the Tikun Nefesh of Ibn Gabreil, Kuzari, Mivhar Peninim, Emunah Ve’dais of Reb Sa’adia Gaon, Chovos Halevovos, and two works of R. Yonah Ibn Ganach.

In general, most people do not enjoy reading ethical wills for a few reasons. Amongst the reasons given is that wills, by nature, can be a depressing reminder of death and the like, topics most people would rather not focus on. Another reason given is (and this they say they find applies to many older mussar seforim as well) is people feel the advice is dated and does not speak to them at all. In this particular case, however, the Iggeres Ha’mussar is not a typical will as it does not focus on death at all. Furthermore, although it was written around 1190, over 800 hundred years ago, it is full of valuable advice that speaks to one even today. Besides for all this, there are some interesting points found in this will that are very appropriate for a seforim blog to talk about- specifically, how one should maintain their library.

Iggeres Ha’mussar is an ethical will which R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon wrote to his son R. Shmuel Ibn Tibbon. This work has been printed earlier, but not that many times. [1] The most recent reprint is Israel Abrahams’ Hebrew Ethical Wills, originally printed in 1926 and reprinted in 2006, with a new forward by Judah Goldin. Now, Mechon Marah has just reprinted this work based on four manuscripts. This edition also includes over three hundred comments from the editor, R. Pinchas Korach, which explain the text and provide sources for many statements in the book. This new version also includes an introduction, short biography of the author, and a listing of R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon sources. Additionally, this edition also includes a letter from R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon to R Asher M’luniel regarding Ibn Tibbon’s translation of Chovos Halevovos.

Some of the many points found in this work. Regarding learning and other areas of ruchnius R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon writes to his son make sure to learn torah as much as possible, (p. 38), make sure to teach it to your children, (p. 59) to one’s students (p. 61). One should study chumash and dikduk on Shabbos and Yom Tov (id.). R. Yehudah writes to make sure not to waste your youth as at that stage of life it is much easier to learn than later in life (p. 38). He also exhorts him to be on time to davening and be from the first ten for the minyan (p. 67).

He tells his son to study medicine (p. 38). Elsewhere he writes that his son should learn the ibur – how the calendar works (p. 57). R. Yehudah is very concerned, throughout the will, that his son learn how to write clearly and with proper grammar and R. Yehudah offers many tips on how to accomplish these goals (pp. 33-36,45-48). R. Yehudah tells his son to learn Arabic (pp. 34-35) and to do so by to studying the parsha every Shabbos in Arabic (p. 43). R. Yehudah expresses the importance of double checking written material prior to sending it as one tends to make mistakes (p. 45) and notes that “even the Ba’al Ha’meor, who was the godal hador, showed R. Yehudah writings before they were sent out” (p. 50).

On life in general, R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon writes that one should be very careful with the mitzvah of kibud av v’em going so far as to tell his son to review the parsha of Bnei Yonoduv (which deal with this topic) every Shabbos (pp. 62 and 32). He tells him to make sure to seek advice from good people, people whom he’s confident in their wisdom (pg 42). Not to get in to arguments with people, (id.), dress oneself and their family nicely, (p. 43), acquire good friends (p. 39), be careful to eat healthy, (p. 54), and make sure to keep secrets people tell you (p. 70). He advises his son to treat his wife respectfully and not to follow the ways of other people who treat their wives poorly. (p. 57) Later on, R. Yehudah adds to make sure not to hit one’s wife (a unfortunate practice that was all too common in that period, see A. Grossman, “Medieval Rabbinic Views on Wife Beating, 800-1300,” in Jewish History 5, 1 (1991) 53-62) and, if one must rebuke their wife to do so softly (p. 58).

Regarding seforim and libraries R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon writes many interesting things. He writes that he bought his son many seforim which covered a wide range of topics, at times buying multiple copies of the same book in order his son would not need to borrow from anyone else (pg 32-33). He writes that “you should make your seforim your friends, browse them like a garden and when you read them you will have peace” (pg 40 – 41). It’s important to know the content of seforim and not to just buy them (pg 33). He also writes “that every month you should check which seforim you have and which you lent out, you should have the books neat and organized so that they will be easy to find. Whichever book you lend out ,make a note, in order that if you are looking for it you will know where it is. And, when it is returned make sure to note that as well. Make sure to lend out books and to care for them properly” (pp. 60 – 61).

One rather strange point throughout the Iggeres Ha’mussar is the tone R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon uses, the tone leaves the impression that his son, R. Shmuael Ibn Tibbon, was very lax in the area of kibud av (see, e.g., pp. 33, 34, 52). Although, I highly doubt that his son completely failed at honoring his father, one thing is certain that in the end R. Shmuel listened to his father and read and fulfilled the suggestions in the will. Specifically, R. Shmuel became fluent in Arabic and became the most famous translator of his generation, translating many works, the most well-known being the Rambam’s Moreh Nevukim, making his father quiet proud of him in the Olam Ha’elyon. This new print of the Iggeres Ha’mussar is aesthetically very appealing – the print is beautiful and the notes are very useful. But, this edition, which claims to have used multiple manuscripts, should not be mistaken for a critical edition as it has serious shortcomings in this area. For example, the will many times references the poems of R. Shemuel Ha’naggid’s Ben Mishlei but R. Korach, in this edition, never provides a citation where they are located in Ben Mishlei. This deficiency is in contrast to Israel Abrahams’ edition where Abrahams does cross-reference these external works. The latest edition states that they used four different manuscripts but do not explain what, if any, major differences are between the manuscripts. Nor do they explain the differences with Abrahams’ edition and theirs. The history in the introduction is very unprofessional, quoting spurious sources – this part in too could have been a bit better. Although the introduction includes some nice highlights of the will they should also have included a full index, which is standard in most contemporary seforim. All in all, however, aside for these minor points this ethical will, and this edition, is worth owning and reading from time to time as R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon wanted his son to do.

Notes

[1] This work was only first published by the famed bibliographer Moritz Steinschneider in 1852. Steinschneider did so as part of a larger work VeYavo Ya’akov el Ha’A”Yan, which Moritz Steinschneider published in honor of his father Yaakov [which is rather appropriate as this will contains much on the obligation to honor one’s parent] reaching age 70. The work was then republished in 1930 by Simcha Assaf under the title Mussar haAv. god or God: A Review of Two Works on the Names of God

god or God: A Review of Two Works on the Names of God Eliezer Brodt Last week I picked up a new sefer titled Nekadesh es Shimcha. What caught my attention was that it included not only Nekadesh es Shimcha but also the work Meleches haKodesh from R. Eleazar Fleckeles (most well-known for his Teshuva m’Ahava). What follows is a short biography of R. Fleckes, a review of Meleches haKodesh, and a review of the new sefer – Nekadesh es Shimcha.

R. Eleazar Fleckeles was born in 1754 in Prague. He was a direct descendant of R. Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz, author of the Keli Yakar, whom R. Fleckeles quotes many times throughout his writings. When R. Fleckeles was 14, he went to study with R. Ezekiel Landau and spent ten years studying there. R. Landau, as is evident from his haskamot to R. Fleckeles works, held R. Fleckeles in high regard. Additionally, many teshuvot in Noda b’Yehuda are penned to R. Fleckeles. In R. Fleckeles’s writings, he quotes many interesting statements from R. Landau [for one example see here]. When R. Fleckeles was twenty-four, he became the Rabbi of Kojetin, a town in Moravia. After four years, however, R. Fleckeles returned to Prague to sit on R. Landau’s Bet Din and serve as a head of a yeshiva.

R. Fleckeles authored many works, works covering halakha, derush, and a commentary on the Haggadah. R. Fleckeles was a skilled halakhist as is evident from his Teshuva m’Ahavah, but his fame also rests on his skills as a darshan. His derashot were published in a four volumes, Olat Chodesh. The fourth volume contains, R. Fleckeles series of derashot he gave against Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank (this section has a seperate title, Ahavat Dovid). One of themes which run throughout his derashot is an emphasis on learning Shas and Poskim and not Kabbalah. Recently, Professor Marc B. Shapiro printed an interesting correspondence between R. Fleckeles and Karl Fischer, a government censor, about Nittel Nacht, which first appeared as “Torah Study on Christmas Eve,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999): 350-55, and then as “A Letter of R. Eleazar Fleckeles Concerning Torah Study on Christmas Eve,” Ohr Yisrael 30 (2002): 165-168. This was not the only correspondence between the two, as a well-known teshuva appears in Teshuva m’Ahavah in response to Fischer’s question about Jew’s taking oaths. Teshuvah m’Ahavah, vol. 1, no. 26.]. In 1826, R. Fleckeles died after serving for 43 years on the Prague Bet Din.

Amongst R. Fleckeles lesser known seforim is the Meleches ha’Kodesh. The book differentiates between the names of Hashem, which are kodesh and which are chol, using the Bavli, Yerushalmi, Midrash, three Targumim, and all the various m’farshim on the Chumash. The reason the differentiation is important is that every time a sofer writes a kodesh name of Hashem, he needs to makes sure it is l’Shem Kedushas HaShem. If the sofer does not do so, the Sefer Torah is invalid. Although there are many instances it is obvious when the name is kodesh, there are many times it is unclear. Over time, there have arguments amongst the various poskim what to do in the ambiguous situations. R. Fleckeles collected all the prior opinions and provides his own conclusion for these questionable Shems.

R. Fleckes begins each of his discussions by quoting an earlier work on the topic Meir Netiv by R. Yehuda Piza [this first appeared in the Chumash R. Piza published in Amsterdam in 1767, Ezras HaSofer – R. Piza will be the subject a forthcoming post at the Seforim blog.] R. Fleckeles then provides additional sources not considered or quoted by R. Piza and then R. Fleckeles comes to his conclusion. In the process, R. Fleckeles demonstrates a tremendous breadth of knowledge in the works of Chazal, the Rishonim, and Achronim. What is extremely interesting about both of these works are the sources used to reach their conclusions. They use, amongst others, the Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, and the Ralbag, these sources are not typically used to form a halachic conclusion. Even more noteworthy, are some of the sources R. Fleckeles uses, the Me’or Eynaim by R. Azariah di Rossi, as well as Mendelssohn’s Biur (pp. 4, 52, and 88). R. Fleckeles also quotes R. Shlomo Dubnow a few times (pp. 92, 115). What is particularly striking about the quotes from Mendelssohn, is that R. Fleckeles, like R. Landau [although R. Landau’s opinion is subject to some debate] was firmly against the Biur. (See Alexander Altman, Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 486-88; Moshe Samet, Chadash Assur Min haTorah, pp. 76-7; Meir Hildesheimer, “Moses Mendelssohn in Nineteenth Century Rabbinical Literature,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (PAAJR) 55 (1988): 79-133, esp. p. 87 n. 23.)

The Meleches haKodesh is divided into two parts, the first, discussing the ambiguous verses, and the second, a through exposition of writing holy-names more generally. Throughout the book, while discussing the specific questions, he includes many of his own explanations of the pesukim. Additionally, he discusses many things of interest in halacha and aggadah not directly related to the main topic. Both of these factors make this an important work even for someone not involved in the topic of the usage of Hashem. [The second part is not reprinted in this new work.]

For instance, there is a discussion when did the author of Onkoles live. (pp. 4, 77). A discussion about the famous controversy of reciting Machnesei Rachamim. R. Fleckeles cites his teacher, R. Landau, that R. Landua when he said Neliah was careful not to pray to the angels. (p. 15). R. Fleckeles writes that tzadikim are greater than angels. (p. 42). Elsewhere he writes that even regular people are greater than angels. (pp. 104-5). At least twice he quotes Torah he thought of in his dreams. (pp. 14, 95). He records an interesting rule it is because they want (למה) ”that wherever Chazal use “lamah to find out the reason for doing something that they do not know any reason for. This is in contrast to the usage of which is used when there is a known (מפני מה) mipneh mah reason but are not satisfied with that reason. (p. 110).

When it comes to the Zohar, R. Fleckeles uses interesting language. After quoting one statement from the Midrash of R. Shimon bar Yochi, he notes that there is a contradictory statement found in the Zohar, to which R. Fleckeles writes:

והיא נפלאת בעיני כפי המפורסם זה שלש מאות שנים חבור הספר הזוהר מהתנא האלקי רשב”י עליו השלום . . . יאמר נא יראי ה’ אם זה הספר תולדות אדם גדול וקודש רשב”י הוא הוי ליה על פנים להזכיר דעתו בזה וצריך עיון רב ליישב על פי פשוט

ו

(pp. 5-6). Elsewhere he writes with regard to having special ומעולם לא עלה על הדעת“ kavanot when saying the name of God קדושים הראשונים חכמים וסופרים לחשוב מחשבות וספירות כי בימיהם .(p. 133) ”.לא ידע מאומה, בלי מה מספירה

In general, throughout R. Fleckeles writings, there are interesting statements about Kabbalah and the Zohar especially, in the above mentioned Ahavat Dovid. In the introduction to that work he quotes a letter from R. Naftai Hertz Wessley which says

כי שמעתי מפי הגאון המקובל הגדול שהי’ ידוע הזוהר וכל ספרי האר”י ז”ל בעל פה הוא הרב ר’ יהונתן אייבשיטץ זצ”ל שהיה אומר לשומעי דבריו בעיני הקבלה כשראה שהם מפקפקים בהם ואמר אם לא תאמינו אין בכך כלום כי אין אלו מעיקרי אמונתנו, וכן היה אומר לאלו המביאים הקדמות מדברי קבלה לישב איזה גמרא או מדרש לא חפצתי בזאת ומה חדוש על פי קבלה תוכל ליישב מה שתרצה אמור לי הפשט הברור על ידי נגלה ואז אודך וכל זה אמת עי”ש עוד Aside from the content of the letter, it is noteworthy that R. Fleckeles quotes R. Wessley at all, as Wessley was one of the early leaders of the haskalah movement and close to Mendelssohn.

The book ends with eulogies and has a separate title, Kuntres Nefesh Dovid v’Nefesh Chayah. This section is comprised of eulogies R. Fleckeles said on his parents, and includes many wonderful explanations of derush on all kinds of topics.

All of this is included in the back of the new work, Nekadesh es Shimcha. This work also is on the topic of the names and status thereof, of God in the Torah. Its author, R. Yehuda Farakas, includes many haskmos including that of R. Elyashiv. The main purpose of this book is to update R. Fleckeles work with the many sources which were unavailable to R. Fleckeles. There are also discussions of pesukim R. Fleckeles did not discuss at all.

Again, R. Farkas uses many works which are not typically used in a halachic context, this includes recently published manuscripts. Amongst the more noteworthy are the Pirush R. Avrohom ben HaRambam, Radak, and Bechor Shor. The use of these runs counter to the well-known opinion of the Chazon Ish regarding newly published manuscripts. R. Farkas also uses many commentaries on the Targumim and Ibn Ezra not otherwise used by most. Throughout, he quotes the pesakim of R. Elyashiv.

In conclusion, this an impressive, encyclopedic work on the topic of God’s name. This is helpful in understanding the meaning of various pesukim in the Chumash. It is noteworthy that the controversial quotes remained, such as that of Mendelsshon. It is possible R. Farkas was unaware the Nesivos Shalom is the title of Mendelssohn’s Biur. The one criticism is R. Farkas’s decision not to republish the second part of Meleches haKodesh which would have made this a complete one- volume compendium on this topic. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde on “The Missing Sections of the Arukh HaShulhan: The Search for the Complete Text”

As a followup to the two recent posts at the Seforim blog — see here (“The Other Works of R. Yehiel Mihel Epstein, Author of the Arukh HaShulhan“) and here (“Printing of the Arukh HaShulhan: The Missing Line About Rabbi Epstein’s Daughter”), we are proud to present Rabbi Michael J. Broyde’s short post about the Arukh HaShulhan.

Three Missing Sections of the Arukh HaShulhan: The Search for the Complete Text Rabbi Michael J. Broyde Anyone who regularly learns the Arukh HaShulhan knows that his restatement of the Shulhan Arukh is incomplete in three places, and perhaps in three different manners.

Firstly, he is missing some sections onmitzvot hateyulot ba’aretz. For example, Yoreh Deah 331 and 332 are missing and Rabbi Epstein explains himself that these matters are (1) not practiced nowadays, (2) complex and long and (3) not related to Yoreh Deah and thus he omits them from this section and places then in the Arukh HaShulhan Ha’atid.

Secondly, the Arukh HaShulhan is missing Yoreh Deah 223-282 which deals with setam yenam (gentile wine), idolatry, ribbit (usury) and magic. I have no explanation as to why these sections were left out, and I have no indication that they were actually written, either — although it would surprise me that any writer on Yoreh Deah would leave these sections out. I have always assumed that they were awaiting publication, although I have no proof as to such.

Thirdly, the Arukh HaShulhan is missing all of hilkhot ketubot which is Even Haezer 66-118. It is clear that the Arukh HaShulhan wrote these sections, as he makes reference to them a number of times in other areas of his writings. (For example, if you look in Arukh HaShulhan hilkhot sotah 178:25, he makes clear reference to his commentary on Even Haezer 115, paragraphs 27-32, which means that he must have written that section already and he assumes that the reader can look this up.) However, as far as I know, they were never published.

So, I was wondering if anyone knew anything else about these missing sections?