of the הסכמות A Note on the חפץ חיים

חפץ חיים of the הסכמותA Note on the By Shnayer Leiman All the comments to the previous posting (“A Note on R. and its Prenumeranten”) are משכן בצלאל Bezalel Alexandrov’s deeply appreciated. It’s what makes the Seforim Blog required reading for anyone interested in serious scholarship. I cannot possibly address all the comments. The references in the notes to the essay address some of the issues raised. To Yisrael Dubitsky’s important comments, one should add that privately are available, at משכן בצלאל owned copies of the two parts of the very least, in New York and Silver Spring, Maryland. משכן בצלאל Having said that, the fuller editions of remain rare books. Hopefully, online ילקוט בצלאל and resources such as Hebrew Books and Otzar Ha-Hokhmah will scan the fuller texts and make them available to all. Lest be משכן בצלאל Yisrael’s comment about YU’s copy of misunderstood by an uninformed reader (“Mishkan Betsalel is available at 4 libraries that reported to OCLC [YU is not one of them]”), rest assured that the Mendel Gottesman Library at The Gottesman Library .משכן בצלאל YU owns a full edition of lists some 200,000 volumes of Judaica on its on-line catalogue, and these are reported to OCLC. Those 200,000 volumes form the basic books necessary for a Jewish Studies research library. But like many Jewish Studies research libraries, YU has many other collections of Judaica, catalogued and uncatalogued. One of those catalogued משכן collections (not on-line) lists the full edition of which, courtesy of the YU librarians, I was able to , בצלאל consult when preparing the essay. since the , הסכמות While the focus of the essay was not on חפץ of the הסכמות bulk of the comments focused on the I shall attempt to address that issue, and only , חיים briefly. חפץ Whether one chooses to recognize the letter of the .1 or not, the letter remains one of the three הסכמה as a חיים to the attention of the משכן בצלאל reasons for bringing is a treasure. This חפץ חיים public. Any letter of the and in the) משכן בצלאל particular one is published only in .(משכן בצלאל secondary sources based upon contains three משכן בצלאל It should be noted that .2 חפץ letters of approbation. Aside from the letter of the it includes a letter of approbation from R. Avraham ,חיים Yoffen (1887-1970), Rosh Yeshiva of Nevarodok in Nevarodok, and then of Nevarodok in Bialystok. The letter is dated 13 Tishre 5680 [October 7, 1919] and was written in Minsk. A third letter of approbation, from R. Yitzchak Isaac Eliezer Hirshowitz (1871-1941), then a Resh Mesivta in the Slabodka section of Kovno, is dated 5 Tishre 5680 [September 29, 1919] and was also written in Minsk. (Rabbi Hirshowitz is famous, in part, for publishing an early translation into Hebrew of the מיטב ,teachings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. His book Vilna, 1913] was intended for Lithuanian Jewry and] הגיון (.from R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski הסכמה carried an enthusiastic The letters of approbation by Rabbis Yoffen and Hirshowitz not only praise R. Bezalel Alexandrov’s learning and piety, they also indicate that both rabbis examined and approved the manuscript of R. Bezalel Alexandrov’s book. All three letters of approbation are printed together immediately following the title page. All three letters are introduced (separately) with To consider the …מכתב תעודה מהרב הגאון :the exact same title and the first a private letter that, הסכמות last two letters has absolutely nothing to do with the book, seems almost ludicrous. A form-critical analysis leads to the ineluctable .הסכמות conclusion that all three letters of approbation are Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that R. Bezalel Alexandrov, חפץ a musar enthusiast, would have placed a letter (by the that had absolutely nothing to do with the book, in (חיים section and thereby mislead potential buyers and הסכמות its readers of the book. Worse yet, he published the “misleading” חפץ and after the ,חפץ חיים letter during the lifetime of the was kind enough to be among the first subscribers to the חיים it ,חפץ חיים by the הסכמה book! In terms of the nature of the is paralleled by many others that he wrote in response to He was impeccably honest, and .הסכמה specific requests for a did not want to praise a book he did not read, and was not likely to read. Instead, he showered priestly blessings on the .מעומקא דלבא ,author

משכן If one examines the first page of prenumeranten in .3 חפץ posted with the essay), one will notice that the) בצלאל אלה שמות :s name appears under the general rubric’חיים This seems awkward, since .הפרענומעראנטין דק”ק ווילנא, שליט”א .lived in Radin, some 85.6 kilometers from Vilna חפץ חיים the The names of no other residents of Radin appear on the four- page list of subscribers. Indeed, the likelihood that anyone would attempt to gather subscriptions from the residents of Radin was probably as high as the likelihood of a Jewish book נועם dealer seeking a copy of the first edition of the one of the rarest of Jewish printed books) in the) אלימלך Serengeti in Tanzania. (Berel Kagan has no entry for Radin.) frequented Vilna חפץ חיים It is well known, however, that the in the 1920’s in particular, and often stayed with relatives in Shnipishok (a Vilna suburb), and would meet with R. Chaim .כלל ישראל Ozer Grodzenski in order to address the needs of Similarly, R. Bezalel Alexandrov was not a resident of Vilna. He was there in 1923 for one purpose only (staying at the home of one of the Vilna subscribers, Shmuel Melamed, at 39 Breite חפץ Gass), in order to publish his book. And the letter of the was written in 1923! It seems likely that the two met in חיים and received ,הסכמה Vilna in 1923 and R. Bezalel asked for a .משכן בצלאל the letter he printed at the start of מאיר עיני It should be noted that the author of .4 cited in note 7 of the essay), in a chapter entitled) ישראל includes ”,הסכמות מרן החפץ חיים זצ”ל לספרי מחברי תקופתו“ given to R. Bezalel חפץ חיים by the הסכמה the lists 3 מפעל הביבליוגרפיה ,Also .משכן בצלאל Alexandrov’s It did not imagine that one of the .משכן בצלאל for ”הסכמות“ letters was a personal letter unrelated to the book being published. 5. Ultimately the issue is one of definition. What is the Or to phrase it another way: what ? הסכמה definition of a in order for it to be הסכמה elements must be present in a .Here are some possibilities ?הסכמה recognized as a legitimate (I will not bring proofs or disproofs for any of these definitions; in fact, these – and many more – have been suggested as possibilities by leading rabbis throughout the generations.) is a legal document by an authorized הסכמה A .1 rabbi that provides copyright protection for the without such a provision is הסכמה A .ספר author of a .הסכמה not a must be written by an authorized rabbi and הסכמה A .2 he must attest to the integrity of the author and to being published . If ספר the integrity of the lacks the one or the other, it is not הסכמה the .הסכמה a must be written by an authorized הסכמה The .3 rabbi and he needs only to attest to the integrity of the author. Nothing else is significant. is a promotional document, signed by an הסכמה A .4 authorized rabbi, and necessary for sales. The content of letter is of little consequence. Whichever definition one chooses, a host of questions will remain to be answered. Who is an authorized rabbi? What if the for הסכמה author of the book, an authorized rabbi, writes the for a son? What shall we הסכמה himself? Can a father write a that do not fit any of the definitions הסכמות do with the many ,הסכמות forged ,הסכמות listed above? Thus, there are censored written under duress, and הסכמות, הסכמות reluctant .just to list a few of the many categories ,הסכמות retracted Even aside from these questions, many great rabbis (in all and published their books ,הסכמות periods) refused to seek without them. Some stated unequivocally (about their . מעשיך יקרבוך ומעשיך ירחקוך :(books In sum, given the uncertain (and changing) definitions of through the ages, I cannot speak with הסכמה the term confidence that I know precisely, in every case, what is and And I certainly have no monopoly on .הסכמה what isn’t a wisdom. Nonetheless, for the reasons listed above, I am for חפץ חיים persuaded that R. Bezalel Alexandrov asked the in 1923, and printed the one he received. Readers will הסכמה a חפץ have to decide for themselves the precise status of the But .משכן בצלאל s letter printed at the beginning of’חיים whatever they decide, they need to bear in mind the variety of through the ages, they need to examine הסכמה definitions of all the evidence, and they need to realize that their conclusion will be only one opinion among many others, and not necessarily the correct one.

A Picture and its One Thousand Words: The Old Jewish Cemetery of Vilna Revisited*

A Picture and its One Thousand Words: The Old Jewish Cemetery of Vilna Revisited* by Shnayer Z. Leiman

A. The Photograph. Recently, I had occasion to publish the above photograph – a treasure that offers a glimpse of what the old Jewish cemetery of Vilna looked like in the inter-war period.[1] Indeed, it captures the oldest portion of the rabbinic section of the old Jewish cemetery. The purpose of this essay is to identify the persons buried here and – where possible – to reconstruct and print the epitaphs on their tombstones. Seven partially legible inscriptions can be seen by the naked eye, as one moves from left to right across the photograph. An empty frame that once held a tombstone can be seen in the center of the photograph, as well. With the aid of a magnifying glass, as well as literary evidence, we shall attempt to identify all those buried here and to restore the full texts of their epitaphs. In effect, we shall engage in a virtual tour of a Jewish cemetery that – sadly — exists today almost entirely underground. Briefly, the old Jewish cemetery was the first Jewish cemetery established in Vilna. According to Vilna Jewish tradition, it was founded in 1487. Modern scholars, based on extant documentary evidence, date the founding of the cemetery to 1593, but admit than an earlier date for its founding cannot be ruled out.[2] The cemetery, still standing today (but denuded of its tombstones), lies just north of the center of the city of Vilna, across the Neris (formerly: the Vilia) River, in the section of Vilna called Shnipishkes (Yiddish: Shnipishok). It is across the river from, and just opposite , one of Vilna’s most significant landmarks, Castle Hill with its Gediminas Tower. The cemetery was known as the Piramont[3] cemetery, also (in Yiddish) asder alter feld or der alter beys eylam [so in Lithuanian Yiddish; in Ashkenazic Yiddish: beys oylom]. It was in use from the year it was founded until 1831, when it was officially closed by the municipal authorities. Although burials no longer were possible in the old Jewish cemetery, it became a pilgrimage site, and thousands of Jews visited annually the graves of the many righteous heroes and rabbis buried there, especially the graves of the Ger Tzedek (Avraham b. Avraham, also known as Graf Potocki, d. 1749), the Gaon of Vilna (R. Eliyahu b. Shlomo, d. 1797), and the Hayye Adam (R. Avraham Danzig, d. 1820). Such visits still took place even after World War II.[4] The cemetery, more or less rectangular in shape, was spread over a narrow portion of a sloped hill, the bottom of the hill almost bordering on the Neris River.[5] The photograph captures some of the oldest mausoleums and graves at exactly that spot, i.e. at the bottom of the hill almost bordering on the Neris River. The tombstone inscriptions face north, toward the top of the hill. As one moves from left to right across the photograph, one is in effect moving uphill toward the entrance of the cemetery, a gate built into the northern portion of the cemetery fence.[6] We shall move from left to right, and begin with the first tombstone inscription. 1. R. Menahem Manes Chajes (1560-1636).

R. Menahem Manes was among the earliest Chief Rabbis of Vilna. Indeed, his grave was the oldest extant grave in the Jewish cemetery, when Jewish historians first began to record its epitaphs in the nineteenth century.[7] R. Menahem Manes’ father, R. Yitzchok Chajes (d. 1615), was a prolific author who served as Chief Rabbi of Prague. Like his father, R. Menahem Manes published several works in his lifetime, ,Lublin) סליחה על שני קדושים including a dirge entitled ערב a treatise in rhyme encompassing all the laws of ;[8](1596 Lublin, 1621)[9]; and left still other) קבלת שבת entitled ,שבת ,פרשת בלק works in manuscript form (e.g., a commentary on now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford ,דרך תמימים entitled University).[10] His epitaph reads:[11] 2. R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen (ca. 1770-1825).

Son of the Chief Rabbi of Brisk, R. Yosef Katzenellenbogen,[12] R. Shaul frequented Vilna as a youth in order to converse with the Gaon of Vilna. After meeting with ראה זה רך בשנים“ :the young Shaul, the Gaon purportedly said Ultimately, R. Shaul settled in Vilna [וטעם זקנים מלא”.[13 Influenced by .מורה צדק where he served with distinction as a the Gaon’s methodology and piety, it is no coincidence that he was asked to write letters of approbation for the first printed editions of works by the Gaon[14] and by (and about) his favorite disciples, R. Shlomo Zalman[15] (d. 1788) and his brother R. Hayyim of Volozhin[16] (d. 1821). R. Shaul’s glosses on the Talmud are included in the definitive edition of the BabylonianTalmud (ed. Romm Publishing Co.: Vilna, 1880-1886). He left an indelible impression on all who knew him; and especially on his students, among them R. David Luria[17] (d. 1855) and R. Samuel Strashun[18] (d. 1872) – two of the leading rabbinic scholars of 19th century Lithuania. He was honored at his death by being buried next to some of Vilna’s greatest rabbis, despite the fact that he was one of the last rabbis buried in the old Jewish cemetery. In 1826, a kloyz was established in Vilna in his memory. Called “Reb Shaulke’s [probably pronounced: Shoelke’s or Sheyelke’s] kloyz,” it remained in continuous use until, and even during, the Holocaust.[19] The inscription that can be seen on the photograph reads:

This is simply an informational sign (almost certainly of early 20th century origin) that indicates to the visitor that R. Shaul was buried in this mausoleum. In fact, he was buried between R. Menahem Manes Chajes (d. 1636) and R. Moshe Rivkes and ancestor of the Vilna ,באר הגולה d. 1672), author of) Gaon. His tombstone inscription, not visible in the photograph, reads:[20]

3. R. Moshe, Dayyan of Vilna (ca. 1670-1740). Little is known about R. Moshe, other than – as indicated on his epitaph – he served with distinction as adayyan in Vilna.[21] Some of his Torah teachings are preserved in his Altona, 1736).[22] R. Moshe was) מצודת דוד ,son R. David’s being an חר”ז ”,popularly known as “R. Moshe Charaz .son-in-law of R. Zalkind.” R“ חתן ר’ זאלקינד abbreviation for Zalkind should probably be identified with R. Shlomo Zalkind b. Barukh, who lived in the second half of the 17th century, and was a respected lay leader of Vilna’s Jewish community.[23] R. Moshe’s epitaph stands outside a second mausoleum, with its own entrance, separate from the first mausoleum (where R. Menahem Manes Chajes, R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen, and R. Moshe Rivkes were buried). The epitaph reads:[24]

4. R. Hillel b. Yonah (d. 1706). The empty frame in the third mausoleum from the left held a wooden tombstone that existed into the 20th century.[25] Before it was removed for repair, it was photographed in situ, and the photograph was preserved at the Ansky Museum in Vilna. The photograph was published just prior to the onset of World War II.[26] The epitaph on the tombstone commemorates the life and death of R. Hillel b. Yonah, Chief Rabbi of Vilna, and his wife Rachel (d. 1710). They were the only occupants of the third mausoleum. R. Hillel served as Chief Rabbi of Chelm prior to his appointment as Chief Rabbi of Vilna in 1688. Some of his Torah teachings are preserved in R. David b. R. Altona, 1736).[27] The joint epitaph) מצודת דוד Moshe’s reads:[28]

5. R. Moshe Darshan (d. 1726). R. Moshe Darshan was born in Vilna in 1641. His father, R. בית Hillel b. Naftali Hertz, was the celebrated author of on Shulhan Arukh Yoeh De’ah and Even ha-Ezer), who served) הלל on the rabbinic court of R. Moshe b. Yitzchok Yehuda Lima of (on Shulhan Arukh Even ha-Ezer חלקת מחוקק Vilna (author of from 1651-1666, and later served as Chief Rabbi of Altona- ראש בית Hamburg, and then Zolkiev.[29] R. Moshe was appointed of Vilna and served in that capacity until his דרשן and דין death. His epitaph reads:[30] 6. R. Yaakov Kahana (d. 1826).[31]

R. Yaakov b. R. Avraham Kahana, a disciple of the Vilna Gaon, was the son-in-law of R. Yissakhar Ber (d. 1807), a brother of the Vilna Gaon. Supported regally by his father-in-law, R. Yaakov suddenly found himself without support upon the death of his father-in-law. The Vilna kehilla immediately appointed him trustee of its various charities, in order to provide him with a dignified income, while enabling him to continue his pursuit of Torah study. R. Yaakov authored a classic Lemberg, 1863 and later) גאון יעקב ,commentary on B. Eruvin editions).[32] His epitaph reads:[33] 7. R. Eliyahu Hasid (d. 1710).

R. Eliyahu was the son of R. Moshe b. David Kramer, who served as Chief Rabbi of Vilna from 1673 to 1687.[34] R. Eliyahu and also as צדקה גדולה served as an administrator of Vilna’s a dayyan. He was a great-grandfather of the Vilna Gaon, and the Gaon was named after him.[35] The epitaph reads:[36]

8. R. Yosef b. Elyah (d. 1718). in Vilna about whom (ראש, אלוף, מנהיג) A communal leader little else is known.[37] That he was buried in proximity to R. Eliyahu Hasid (d. 1710), and that at a later date R. Moshe Darshan (d. 1726) was buried in proximity to him, is sufficient proof of his prominence, perhaps in wisdom and certainly in wealth. His epitaph reads:[38] ————————- B. A Visit to the Old Jewish Cemetery in 1940. Known affectionately as “Reb Dovid,” Rabbi Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik is currently Rosh Yeshiva of the Brisk Yeshiva in the Givat Moshe (also called: Gush Shemonim) section of Jerusalem. A descendant of R. Hayyim of Volozhin (d. 1821), and a scion of the Soloveitchik dynasty – his grandfather was R. Hayyim Soloveitchik (d. 1918), Rosh Yeshiva of Volozhin and Chief Rabbi of Brisk; and his father was R. Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik (d. 1959), last Chief Rabbi of Brisk, and founder of the Brisk dynasty in Jerusalem) – he is a leader of the Haredi community in Israel.

A still active nonagenarian, he was born circa 1923. Upon the outbreak of World War II, he fled from Brisk and made his way to Vilna, which – largely due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 23, 1939, and Stalin’s subsequent decision to hand Vilna over to Lithuania – became the newly recognized capital of Independent Lithuania. Reb Dovid, a teenager at the time, resided in Vilna from October 22, 1939 through January 19, 1941, when together with his father (and other members of the family), he embarked on the arduous and dangerous journey that would bring him to the land of Israel, where the family ultimately settled.[39] Some 15 volumes of Reb Dovid’s teachings have שיעורי רבנו משולם דוד :appeared in print, many under the title These are transcriptions of his lectures as recorded by .הלוי his students, with focus primarily on Torah and Talmud commentary. One of the volumes, however, includes a riveting account – in R. Dovid’s own words – of how he managed to survive the Holocaust. The memoir includes a brief description of a visit he made to the old Jewish cemetery in Vilna in 1940.[40] The passage reads:[41] “When in Vilna, I went several times to visit the cemetery where the Vilna Gaon was buried, but it was closed. The gate was kept locked because burials no longer took place in the old Jewish cemetery, which was inside the city limits. Burials now took place in another cemetery [Zaretcha] which was outside the city limits.[42] Moreover, the caretaker who had the keys [to the old Jewish cemetery] lived far from the cemetery. Once, however, I came to the cemetery and found the gate open and went in to visit the Vilna Gaon’s grave. On my way to the grave, I passed an ancient tombstone with the inscribed on its epitaph.[43] I could not ’משיח ה words understand what this signified and who was buried there.[44] From there I reached the Vilna Gaon’s grave, and nearby, the grave of R. Avraham the Ger Tzedek. (At some later date, I chanced upon a pamphlet which contained a eulogy by R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen,[45] of blessed memory, over the author of Ha-Pardes.[46] In this pamphlet about the author of Ha- Pardes, it is stated that when he died a search was made in the old Jewish cemetery for a place where he could be buried. One empty plot was found, to the right of which was buried [R. Moshe Rivkes] the author of Be’er Ha-Golah, and to the left of which was buried Since no one had been buried in the .’משיח ה R. Manes empty plot next to these rabbis for some 85 years,[47] a rabbinic court was convened to decide whether the plot could be used now for the author ofHa-Pardes . The decision was that he should be buried between the two rabbis. They explained that it was a special privilege for the author of Ha-Pardes to be buried next to these righteous persons, and went on to describe the It seems .’משיח ה righteousness and piety of R. Manes likely that this was the tombstone I saw with the ”.on its epitaph ’משיח ה words

This delightful account offers important testimony regarding what a living witness observed during a visit to the old Jewish cemetery in Vilna in 1940. On his way to the Vilna משיח Gaon’s grave, R. Dovid saw a tombstone with the words inscribed on its epitaph. The reference, of course, is to ’ה the grave of R. Menahem Manes Chajes (see above, epitaph 1). It is indeed nearby to the Gaon’s mausoleum, and one could easily stop to see it on the way to the Gaon’s grave. The alert reader will surely wonder why in the photograph taken in the inter-war period, which includes the epitaph of R. Menahem whereas ,’משיח ה Manes Chajes, one cannot make out the words R. Dovid testifies that in 1940 it was precisely those words that caught his attention. The answer, I believe, is provided by another photograph of R. Menachem Manes Chajes’ epitaph taken in the summer of 1936.[48] משיח It too, at first glance, seems to have the words erased. But if one examines the photograph closely, one can ’ה The white paint that once covered .’משיח ה make out the words these etched letters has been chipped off. The inter-war photograph, a “group” photograph taken from a distance, could not capture the etched letters that now appeared as black on black. The naked eye of a human being, however, could pick up So too, a close up .’משיח ה the etched stone letters that read photograph of the Chajes epitaph alone, taken in 1936. R. Dovid adds that, subsequently, he chanced upon a pamphlet that helped him identify the epitaph he had seen. The pamphlet contained a eulogy by R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen over the author of Ha-Pardes, who apparently died in Vilna. Initially, an appropriate burial place could not be found for him in the old Jewish cemetery. But after much search, an and [R. Moshe ’משיח ה empty plot was found between R. Manes Rivkes,] the author of Be’er Ha-Golah. Since no one had been buried in proximity to these rabbis for some 85 years, a rabbinical court had to convene in order to decide the issue. The ruling was in favor of the burial, and special mention was which clearly ,’משיח ה made of the piety of R. Manes identified the epitaph that R. Dovid had seen. Sadly, I have not succeeded in locating such a pamphlet. If indeed R. Dovid saw such a pamphlet, he cannot be faulted for summarizing its content. It certainly enabled him to identify the epitaph as belonging to the tombstone of R. Menahem Manes Chajes. But problems abound. R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen (see above, epitaph 2) died in 1825. He wrote no pamphlets and published no eulogies. The author ofHa- Pardes was R. Aryeh Leib Epstein, chief Rabbi of Koenigsberg (today: Kaliningrad).[49] He died in 1775 and was buried in Koenigsberg.[50] Thus, R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen, five years old at the time, could not have published a eulogy over him. In fact, it was R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen (as described above in epitaph 2) – and not the author of Ha-Pardes – who was buried between R. Menahem Manes Chajes and R. Moshe Rivkes. One suspects that the pamphlet R. Dovid chanced Vilna and) גבעת שאול upon was R. Zvi Hirsch Katzenellenbogen’s Grodno, 1825). The author, a devoted disciple of R. Shaul,[51] published a eulogy upon the death of his teacher. He writes:[52] “On the day of his [R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen’s] burial, an oracle was heard – a voice without pause[53] – that an empty plot had been found between R. Moshe Rivkes, author of Be’er Ha-Golah and the Gaon R. Manes Chajes already ,’משיח ה who was depicted on his tombstone as) so in the early generations, in the year [5]386 [= 1626],[54] even aside from the seven virtues listed by the Sages that characterize all great individuals[55]). In that section of the cemetery, the gravediggers did not dare to dig a grave during the last 85 years, for they feared for their lives. For that section of the cemetery was filled with holy and pious Jews.[56] But due to an agreement of the Moreh Zedek’s of our community, they began digging and found an empty plot waiting for this righteous Rabbi’s remains since the week of Creation.

Here – and apparently in no other pamphlet – we have all the basic elements in R. Dovid’s account, with one glaring exception. Nothing is mentioned about the author of Ha-Pardes, R. Aryeh Leib Epstein. As indicated above, the author of Ha-Pardes in any event had nothing to do with a burial in Vilna. He lived at the wrong time (when empty plots were still available throughout the old Jewish cemetery) and died and was buried in the wrong place (in Koenigsberg). It is possible that we have in R. Dovid’s account a conflation of .Aside from R .גבעת שאול two unrelated pamphlets, each named cited above), a) גבעת שאול Zvi Hirsch Katzenellenbogen’s pamphlet with the exact same title, and also offering a eulogy, was authored by R. Shemariah Yosef Karelitz (d. 1917).[57] Warsaw, 1892), was a eulogy over) גבעת שאול ,The pamphlet Karelitz’ father-in-law, whose name also happened to be R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen (1828-1892), and who had served with distinction as rabbi of Kossovo and then Kobrin (both today in Belarus). This second R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen was a descendant of R. Aryeh Leib Epstein, author ofHa-Pardes . .R ,גבעת שאול ’Indeed, on the first title page of Karelitz Shaul Katzenellenbogen is described in bold letters as a member of the Epstein family. On the second title page, he is described in bold letters as a descendant of “R. Aryeh Leib Epstein, author of Ha-Pardes.”

[ In sum, R. Dovid’s account provides impeccable testimony that the epitaph on the tombstone of R. Menahem Manes Chajes – the oldest tombstone preserved in the old Jewish cemetery – could still be visited and read in 1940.[58] What he claims to have read in a pamphlet at some later date remains problematic and requires further investigation or, as .צריך עיון ,the later commentators would have put it * In memory of Khaykl Lunski (ca. 1881-1943), fabled librarian of the Strashun Library, who was the embodiment of the very soul of Jewish Vilna. His last essay – a study of the faded tombstone inscriptions in Vilna’s old Jewish cemetery – was written in the Vilna Jewish ghetto created by the Nazis. It perished together with him during the Holocaust. See Shmerke New York, 1947), p. 198) חורבן ווילנע ,Kaczerginski (henceforth: Kaczerginski). Cf. Hirsz Abramowicz, Profiles of a Lost World (Detroit, 1999), p. 264. Kaczerginski’s description of Lunski’s last years in the Vilna ghetto are worth citing here:

Khaykl Lunski (ca. 1881-1943) NOTES:

[1] Sid Z. Leiman, “Lithuanian Government Announces Construction of a $25,000,000 Convention Center in the Center of Vilna’s Oldest Jewish Cemetery,”The Seforim Blog, September 13, 2015, available online here, reprinted here. A similar photograph (from a slightly different angle) appears in Leyzer Ran, Jerusalem of Lithuania (New York, 1974), vol. 1, p. 100 (henceforth: Ran). Alas, its lack of clarity renders it mostly useless. ,Vilna) קורות בית-העלמין הישן בוילנה ,See Israel Klausner [2] 1935; reissued: Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 3-5 (henceforth: Klausner). Cf. Elmantas Meilus, “The History of the Old Jewish Cemetery at Šnipiškes in the Period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,” Lithuanian Historical Studies 12 (2007), pp. 64-67 (henceforth: Meilus). [3] It was originally called “Pioromont,” because the old Jewish cemetery was adjacent to a street and neighborhood named after Stanislav Pior, an 18th century starosta who owned land in the area (Meilus, p. 88). [4] See, e.g., the testimony of Chaim Basok, who together with Rabbi Kalman Farber visited the Vilna Gaon’s grave in the old Jewish cemetery at Piramont after Vilna was liberated by the אולקניקי ראדין ,Russian army in 1944. See Kalman Farber Jerusalem, 2007), p. 413. I have personally interviewed) וילנא several former residents of Vilna who visited the Gaon’s grave in the old Jewish cemetery at Piramont between 1945 and 1948. [5] A detailed map of the cemetery, as it appeared in 1935, is appended to Klausner. [6] For an artist’s depiction of the gate at the northern דער גר-צדק ,entrance to the cemetery, see Sholom Zelmanovitch Kovno, 1934), opposite p. 44. Notice) ווילנער גראף פאטאצקי Castle Hill at the upper right hand corner of the sketch; the and the ;והקיצו לקץ הימין ,inscription above the gate בית עולם ,inscriptions on the sides of the gate :and zydu kapines. Here is the sketch ווילנא ,(Vilna, 1860) קריה נאמנה ,See, e.g., Shmuel Yosef Fuenn [7] p. 63 (henceforth: Fuenn 1860). Cf. the second and revised Vilna, 1915), p. 67 (henceforth: Fuenn) קריה נאמנה edition of 1915). .Jerusalem, 1994), vol) אוצר ספר העברי ,Yeshayahu Vinograd [8] 2, p. 359, entry 65. מהר”ר מנחם מאניש חיות וספר קבלת “ ,See Moshe Dovid Chechik [9] .pp. 668-691 ,(שבת,” ישורון 17(2006 [10] Adolf Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and in the College Libraries of Oxford (Oxford, 1886), column 59, entry 293. [11] We have attempted to transcribe the Hebrew texts exactly as they appear in the photograph. We add in brackets the reconstruction of letters and words that in all likelihood once appeared in the original texts, but were no longer visible when the photograph was taken. For other photographs יאר ,of the epitaph, see Klausner, p. 36; Zalman Szyk ;(Vilna, 1939), pp. 408 and 416 (henceforth: Szyk) ווילנע 1000 Ran, vol. 1, p. 101 ; and Reuben Selevan, A Trip to Remember: New York to Europe 1936 (New York, 2009), p. 113. The reconstructions are based mostly on the earlier transcriptions of the epitaphs in Fuenn and Klausner. Over the years, some of the epitaphs were redone, and the reconstructed texts are often faulty. Enlarged and/or dotted letters (signaling acrostics, names, or dates) were sometimes made small and the dots were omitted. Small letters were sometimes enlarged. Letters and words were added or dropped when a partially erased word could no longer be read. Thus, for example, the first three words of R. Menahem Manes Chajes’ an impossible ,פה נטמן בו :epitaph (in the photograph) read construction in Hebrew. It is obvious that one or more words are missing from the opening line of the epitaph. It is also evident the first lines form an acrostic spelling out his When the epitaphs were redone, the original .מנחם מאנש :name line divisions were not always retained. For the letters in see ,(קדרו )וש מיםbold relating to the year of his death below, note 54. Based upon the earlier transcriptions in Fuenn (Fuenn 1860, p. 63; Fuenn 1915, p. 67) and Klausner (pp. 36-39), and a measure of common sense, the original epitaph probably read:

[12] R. Shaul was also the brother of his father’s successor in the rabbinate of Brisk, R. Aryeh Leib (d. 1837). See Aryeh Leib Feinstein, .Warsaw, 1886), p. 30) עיר תהלה ,Vilna) אבל כבד ,Abraham Dov Baer ha-Kohen Lebensohn [13] .p. 2 ”,תולדות הנאון“ section ,(1825 Vilna and Grodno,1820), page following) ספרא דצניעותא See [14] title page. ,(Dyhernfurth, 1809) תולדות אדם ,See R. Yehezkel Feivel [15] vol. 2, page following title page. ,Vilna and Grodno) נפש החיים ,See R. Hayyim of Volozhin [16] 1824), page following title page. קדמות ,in R. David Luria ”,תולדות הרד”ל“ ,Samuel Luria [17] .New York, 1951), pp. 12-14) ספר הזהר ,Vilna) עיר ווילנא ,See Hillel Noah Maggid Steinschneider [18] 1900), vol. 1, p. 163. [19] See Aliza Cohen-Mushlin, Sergey Kravtsov, Vladimir Levin, Giedrė Mickūnaitė, and Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė- Verbickienė, Synagogues in Lithuania (Vilnius, 2012), vol. 2, p. 316, item 55. Cf. Ran, vol. 1, p. 112. (The alleged photograph of R. Shaulke’s kloyz in Ran is misidentified; cf. Synagogues in Lithuania, vol. 2, p. 348, n. 248.) The address of the kloyz was Szawelska (later: Žmudskij) [Yiddish: Shavli] 5 (today: Šiauliu 2). The original building no longer stands. During the Holocaust, the kloyz continued to serve as a prayer house and it housed a Yeshiva named in memory of R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzenski (d. 1940). See Kaczerginski, p. 209; .Tel-Aviv, 1977), pp) יומן בגיטו וילנה ,cf. Zelig Kalmanovitch 83 and 100 (English edition: Zelig Kalmanovitch “A Diary of the Nazi Ghetto in Vilna,” Yivo Annual of Jewish Social Science 8[1953], pp. 30 and 47). [20] Fuenn 1860, pp. 236-238; Fuenn 1915, pp. 237-239; Klausner, p. 75. [21] See Fuenn 1860, p. 100; Fuenn 1915, p. 107; and cf. Klausner, pp. 43-44. .pp. 3a, 7a, and 31a ,מצודת דוד .See, e.g [22] [23] Fuenn 1860, p. 107, paragraph 50, number 11; Fuenn 1915, p. 113, paragraph 51, number 11. [24] The text of the epitaph was not recorded either by Fuenn or Klausner. However, it is easily restored by combining the general information they provide with the legible portions of the text in the photograph. [25] There is good reason to believe that wooden tombstones once proliferated in the old Jewish cemetery, but they did not survive the ravages of time and circumstance. See, e.g., Klausner, p. 38 (who indicates that as late as 1810 the fee for stone tombstones was twice the חברא קדישא exacted by the amount exacted for wooden tombstones) and Szyk, p. 406 (who states that the majority of tombstones in the old Jewish cemetery were made of wood but did not survive). Only two wooden tombstones (in the old Jewish cemetery) survived into the twentieth century; those of R. Hillel b. Yonah and R. Yehoshua Heschel b. Saul, who served as Chief Rabbi of Vilna from circa 1725 until his death in 1749. For photographs of R. Yehoshua Heschel’s wooden tombstone, see Klausner, p. 52; Szyk, p. 416; and Ran, vol. 1, p. 101. [26] Klausner, p. 42. Cf. Szyk, p. 416 and Ran, vol. 1, p. 100 (mostly illegible). .p. 27a ,מצודת דוד ,.See, e.g [27] [28] Fuenn 1860, pp. 97-98; Fuenn 1915, pp. 104-105. .Krakau, 1903), pp. 4-7) אוה למושב ,See Eduard Duckesz [29] [30] Fuenn 1860, pp. 99-100; Fuenn 1915, pp. 106-107; Klausner, p. 43. [31] Moving from left to right on the photograph, R. Yaakov Kahana’s tombstone (tombstone 6) appears to the right of R. Moshe Darshan’s tombstone (tombstone 5). But as one walks uphill from the bottom to the top of the cemetery, one passes the three mausoleums, then the twin gravestones of R. Yaakov Kahana and R. Eliyahu Hasid (tombstone 7), and only then the grave of R. Moshe Darshan. [32] For biographical information about R. Yaakov Kahana, see Fuenn 1860, p. 239; Fuenn 1915, pp. 239-240; and the third גאון יעקב entitled ,גאון יעקב edition of Kahana’s Jerusalem, 1997), introductory pages. See also Yaakov) השלם .p. 270, notes 7-9 ,(ספר צוף דבש,” ישורון Polskin, “1998)4 [33] Here too, the photograph presents an empty frame. Only the opening lines (i.e. the marker identifying the grave) can still be read. The original epitaph is recorded in Fuenn 1860, p 240; Fuenn 1915, pp. 240-241. Klausner (p. 53) mentions Kahana’s grave but does not record the epitaph. [34] For biographical information about R. Moshe Kramer, see Fuenn 1860, pp. 95-96; Fuenn 1915, pp. 102-103, and the references cited in the next note. סערת ,(See R. Avraham b. R. Eliyahu (the Gaon’s son [35] Vilna, 1889), p. 18. Cf. R. Yehoshua Heschel) אליהו .Vilna, 1885), p. 39, note 5) עליות אליהו ,Levin [36] The opening lines (i.e. the marker identifying the grave) are painted on the upper portion of the tombstone. The epitaph is encased below the tombstone’s upper portion. For the epitaph, see Fuenn 1860, p. 99; Fuenn 1915, pp. 105-106; and Szyk, p. 408. [37] See Fuenn 1860, p. 107; Fuenn 1915, p. 113. [38] Here too the opening lines represent the marker identifying the grave, almost certainly added at a later date. For the epitaph, see Klausner, p. 43. ,Jerusalem) שיעורי רבנו משולם דוד הלוי: דרוש ואגדה See [39] 2014), pp. 390-396. For the date when R. Dovid left Vilna הרב ,January 19, 1941), we have followed Shimon Yosef Meller) .Jerusalem, 2003), vol. 1, p. 513) מבריסק [40] No precise date is provided by R. Dovid for his visit to the old Jewish cemetery. But since he arrived in Vilna on October 22, 1939, and his first attempts to visit the cemetery were thwarted, we assume the visit took place in 1940, the only full year he spent in Vilna. It is possible, however, that the visit took place late in 1939 or early in 1941. ,(Jerusalem, 2014) שיעורי רבנו משולם דוד הלוי: דרוש ואגדה [41] pp. 393-394. The translation provided here is paraphrastic. The original Hebrew text reads:

[42] In 1940, Jewish burials were still taking place in Zaretcha, the successor cemetery to the old Jewish cemetery, which was closed in 1831. Zaretcha (today: Užupis), just outside the Old Town, and across the Vilenka River, was part of the Vilna municipality in 1940. [43] In the latter part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the northern gate was no longer used. One entered the old Jewish cemetery from a side entrance on Derewnicka Street. The path from the entrance would lead one to the section where R. Menahem Manes Chajes was buried (on the right) and to the mausoleum where the Vilna Gaon was buried (on the left). see, e.g., I Sam. 24:7 and) ’משיח ה The biblical title [44] Lam. 4:20), rendered “the Lord’s anointed one,” was usually reserved for kings and would-be messiahs (by their followers), not rabbis. R. Dovid could not identify the occupant of the מהור”ר מנחם grave, perhaps because the line with the name .simply didn’t resonate to a 17 year old yeshiva student מאנש One could claim that the line with R. Menahem Manes’ name was no longer legible in 1940 (as it was not legible in the inter- war photograph that forms the basis of this essay), but this seems highly unlikely in the light of the Selevan photograph taken in 1936. See below, note 48. The Selevan photograph is a close-up photo, and R. Dovid was standing directly in front of the same tombstone. He had no trouble reading poorly painted words. [45] See discussion below. [46] See discussion below. [47] R. Menahem Manes Chajes died in 1636; R. Moshe Rivkes died in 1672. Eighty five years after these dates would be between 1721 and 1757. Since, as we shall see, the author of Ha-Pardes died in 1775, “85 years” cannot be referring to the time that elapsed between their deaths and his. “100 years” and more would have been a more accurate estimate. See below, note 56, for a likely explanation of the “85 years.” [48] Reuben Selevan, A Trip to Remember: New York to Europe 1936 (New York, 2009), p. 113. I am deeply grateful to the author for granting me permission to scan and post the photograph (taken by his father in 1936) of R. Menahem Manes Chajes’ epitaph. [49] For a biography of R. Aryeh Leib Epstein, see R. Ephraim Vilna, 1870).Ha-Pardes , only) גבורות ארי ,Mordechai Epstein partially published, was an encyclopedic work encompassing many different genres of rabbinic literature. It includes talmudic commentary, listing and exposition of the 613 commandments, responsa literature, halakhic codes, kabbalistic teaching, sermons, eulogies, and more. The first fascicle with was published in Koenigsberg, 1759. It is ספר הפרדס the title ספרי בעל :a available today in several editions, including ,Jerusalem) ספרי הפרדס Bnei Brak, 1978), 2 vols.; and) הפרדס .Bnei Brak, 1980), pp) מעשה רב חדש vols. See also 4 ,(1983 29-80. [50] His grave is no longer standing. A sketch of his grave, as it looked in 1904, appears in Festschrift zum 200jahrigen Bestehen des israelitischen Vereins für Krankenpflege und Beerdigung Chewra Kaddischa (Koenigsberg, 1904), sketch IV. The full Hebrew epitaph is printed opposite p. XX.

[51] See the entry on him in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1973), vol. 10, column 830. .p. 23a. The translation here is paraphrastic ,גבעת שאול [52] The Hebrew text reads:

[53] See Deut. 5:19 and Rashi’s comment ad loc. [54] The year of R. Menahem Manes Chajes’ death was recorded Several of these .קדרו ושמים :on his epitaph with the words letters had protruding dots above them; the numerical value of the dotted letters yields the year of his death. At a very early period, some of the dots could no longer be read. Fuenn (1860, p. 63; 1915, p. 67) writes that he was able to make out But those letters alone .מ and , ר, ו dots above the letters could not possibly refer to his date of death. This passage indicates that in 1825, at least, the dotted letters also totaling [5]386 = 1626. On other ,ם and final קincluded grounds, we know that Chajes died in [5]396 = 1636, so it appears likely that the dotted letters also once included If not for Fuenn’s testimony, we would claim .ושמים of י the yields the (ושמים ( = [that the second word by itself, 396[5 year of Chajes’s death. Cf. Moshe Dovid Chechik (above, note 9), p. 675. [55] See M. Avot 5:7. [56] Given that this passage was written in 1825, “85 years” here refers to the period between 1740 and 1825. As the passage itself makes clear, the reference is to the many rabbinic greats who were buried in this section of the cemetery by 1740 – and not later. See above, epitaphs 1,3,4,5,7, and 8, all of which are samples that support the claim that after 1740 no rabbinic greats were buried in this section of the cemetery. Epitaphs 2 and 6 are in harmony with this claim. Epitaph 2 is the epitaph of R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen, the case at hand. Epitaph 6 (R. Yaakov Kahana) is dated 1826, a year after the case at hand and the publication of the passage in R. Zvi Hirsch .גבעת שאול Katzenellenbogen’s [57] The father of R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (d. 1953), חזון איש. author of 58]] I am deeply grateful to Professor Dovid Katz of Vilnius, mentor and colleague, whose astute comments have enhanced the final version of this essay. Lithuanian Government Announces Construction of a $25,000,000 Convention Center in the Center of Vilna’s Oldest Jewish Cemetery

Lithuanian Government Announces Construction of a $25,000,000 Convention Center in the Center of Vilna’s Oldest Jewish Cemetery by Sid Leiman According to Russian statistics, Vilna had close to 200,000 inhabitants just prior to World War I, roughly forty percent of whom were Jewish, more than thirty percent were Polish, and about twenty percent were Russian and the rest consisted of small Lithuanian, Byelorussian, German and Tartar minorities.[1]

In 1919, the Paris Peace Conference was convened by the winning parties of World War I. Its purpose was to map the future of postwar Europe. When the status of Vilna came up for discussion, the Lithuanians claimed Vilnius as the rightful historical capital of independent Lithuania; the Poles rejected such claims on the basis of the cultural and linguistic affinities of Wilno to Poland. The Soviet regime, in diplomatic isolation, voiced its opinion that although Vilna had been part of Russia, the Bolsheviks were ready to share it with the oppressed peoples (mostly peasants) of Lithuanian and Byelorussian origins. Nobody asked or wanted to hear what Vilna meant to the Jews.[2]

I. Prologue. In the summer of 1935, the municipal authorities of Vilna, then under Polish rule, announced that a sports stadium would be constructed on the site of Vilna’s oldest Jewish cemetery.[3] At the time, the graves and tombstones of such greats as R. Menahem Mannes Chajes (d. 1636), one of Vilna’s earliest Chief Rabbis; R. Moshe Rivkes (d. 1671), author of Be’er Ha-Golah, a classic commentary on the Shulhan Arukh; R. Shlomo Zalman (d. 1788), younger brother of R. Hayyim of Volozhin and a favorite disciple of the Gaon of Vilna; R. Elijah b. Solomon (d. 1797), the Gaon of Vilna; and R. Abraham Danzig (d. 1820), author of Hayye Adam, a digest of practical Jewish law, stood in all their glory together with several thousand graves of all the Jewish men, women and children who had lived and died in Vilna between the years of 1592 and 1831.[4] Tombstone Inscription of R. Menahem Mannes Chajes (d. 1636), embedded in the wall at the extreme left, in the Old Jewish Cemetery. Tomb of R. Shlomo Zalman (d. 1788), younger brother of R. Hayyim of Volozhin, in the Old Jewish Cemetery. Tomb of R. Elijah b. Solomon (d. 1797), the Gaon of Vilna, top right, in the Old Jewish Cemetery.

Grave and Tombstone Inscription of R. Abraham Danzig (d. 1820), center, in the Old Jewish Cemetery. R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski, spiritual leader of Vilna Jewry, as well as the leading Torah authority of his generation, interceded on behalf of Vilna and worldwide Jewry. He made it clear than no such desecration of a Jewish cemetery would be tolerated by the Jewish community. When the municipal authorities informed him that under the laws that applied at the time any cemetery not in use for one hundred years or more (the old Jewish cemetery was closed in 1831 due to lack of space) could be demolished by government decision, R. Chaim Ozer was adamant and informed the authorities that Jewish law prohibits the desecration of any Jewish cemetery, whether or not presently in use. Moreover, R. Chaim Ozer informed the authorities that the Jewish community would not comply in any way with the immoral demands of the municipal government. An attempt at a compromise was then made by the authorities; they were prepared to allow the section where the famous rabbis were buried to remain standing, so long as the Jewish community would agree to allow the government to demolish the remainder of the cemetery – where ordinary folk, i.e., men, women, and children were buried. R. Chaim Ozer ruled out any such compromise solution and, instead, engaged in a tireless, worldwide lobbying campaign, in an effort to persuade the government officials to rescind their decree.[5] R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski (in 1939). When some rabbis in Palestine – sensing the gravity of the situation – issued a broadside calling for the grave of the Gaon of Vilna to be exhumed so that his remains could be transferred to the Holy Land, R. Chaim Ozer was livid. For, explained R. Chaim Ozer, by acquiescing to the exhumation and transfer of famous rabbis, one in effect consigns the rest of the cemetery to mass destruction. Moreover, it sets a precedent for all governments in Europe – just transfer the famous rabbis out of the Jewish cemetery and the Jews will agree to abandon the remainder of the cemetery.[6] The upshot of R. Chaim Ozer’s wisdom and intransigence was that under his watch, no sports stadium was constructed on the old Jewish cemetery.[7] R. Chaim Ozer died on August 9 [= 5 Av], 1940.[8] Vilna, and arguably world Jewry, would never again have a leader who so deftly and gracefully combined within himself mastery of Torah, practical wisdom, and an unswerving commitment to the dissemination and protection of Jewish values – with profound and unstinting loyalty to his people, both living and deceased – under any and all circumstances. II. Statement of Faina Kukliansky, Chairperson of the Lithuanian Jewish Community, Vilnius, August 15, 2015:[9] Despite a Jerusalem Post story that would suggest otherwise (“Anger Flares Over Lithuanian Sports Palace,” Sam Sokol, 8/11/2015) there is today a remarkable consensus in Vilnius that the site of the former Snipiskes Cemetery and the graves beneath must be protected. On this matter, the government of Lithuania, the Lithuanian Jewish community which I chair, and the Committee for the Preservation of Jewish Cemeteries in Europe (CPJCE), which is Europe’s foremost halachic authority on cemeteries, all agree. Attention is now focused on the abandoned former Soviet Sports Palace, which partially sits on the cemetery grounds and in its current condition is mostly a gathering place for graffiti artists and alcoholics. The government rightly wants to remove the building and turn it into a center for conferences and cultural events. Because the building itself has been designated an architectural heritage site, no significant structural changes are possible, but the interior will be renovated. The surrounding area will be maintained as a memorial park with inscriptions that describe some of the most famous people who were buried there.

The Lithuanian government and the CPJCE have an agreement dating to 2009, concerning the cemetery site. Even though we are only in a planning stage and still months away from any construction, recent discussions between the two have worked out an understanding for dealing with the renovation of the former Sports Palace. The CPJCE will provide rabbinic oversight and ensure that there are no halachic violations in the course of the work that takes place. The government has further agreed to limit the type of activities that will take place in the renovated center so that they are in keeping with the special nature of the site.

If anything, this should be a cause for celebration and a model for how other governments in our part of the world should deal with similar challenges of respecting and protecting Jewish cemeteries and the mass graves of Holocaust victims.

So what accounts for the “angry voices” in your story and the outrageous claims that a “desecration” is taking place?

No doubt some of those quoted are simply uninformed, and this fuller explanation will assuage their concerns. But sadly there are others who do know better but are using this issue to advance their own personal feuds and grievances. Some of them are rivals to the CPJCE, and while they would never publicly criticize its eminent Chairman, Rabbi Elyakim Schlesinger, they pretend not to know his involvement here. Perhaps even more destructive is the role being played by our community’s former rabbi, Chaim Burstein. His contract was recently terminated – he has spent more days abroad on his personal business than serving our Jews here in Lithuania – and so he is spreading these stories in order to attack me. It pains me to say these things, but your readers should know the truth.

As a proud Litvak who has the honor to chair a small but resilient Jewish community I have been part of many difficult struggles during these past decades as we have pressed the Lithuanian government to return former Jewish property and pressed the Lithuanian people to squarely confront the history of our Holocaust-era past. Those struggles are not over, but we have had much success. How ironic that as we now have Lithuanian leaders who are prepared to see clearly what happened in the past, we have fellow Jews who refuse to see clearly what is happening today.

Faina Kukliansky

III. Response to the Chairperson of the Lithuanian Jewish Community: On August 15, 2015, Faina Kukliansky, Chairperson of the Lithuanian Jewish Community, issued a statement regarding the planned $25,000,000 Convention Center to be constructed by the Lithuanian government, and funded in large part by the European Union’s Structural Funds Program, in the center of Vilnius’ oldest Jewish cemetery – in use from the 16th through the 19th centuries – in the Shnipishkes (Yiddish: Shnipishok) section of Vilnius. In the opening paragraph of the statement, Faina Kukliansky assures all concerned “that the site of the former Snipiskes cemetery and the graves beneath must be protected.” Her assurance, however, rings hollow, for as one reads on, it becomes apparent that she fully supports the idea of a Convention Center being constructed over the remains of the Jews buried in the cemetery.[10] Ms. Kukliansky writes about the “abandoned former Soviet Sports Palace, which partially sits on the cemetery grounds.” One gets the impression that perhaps an annex to the Soviet-era Sports Palace, or its outer wall, sits on the cemetery grounds. In fact, the Soviet-era Sports Palace sits squarely in the very center of the old Jewish cemetery.[11]

Soviet-Era Sports Palace in Vilna, as it looks today, in the Old Jewish Cemetery. Ms. Kukliansky continues: “Because the building [i.e., the Soviet-era Sports Palace] itself has been designated an architectural heritage site, no changes are possible.” Really? It was in the Soviet period that all the tombstones were systematically removed from the cemetery between 1948 and 1955, and it was in the Soviet period that a Sports Palace was constructed over the dead bodies of thousands of Vilnius Jews.[12] Now who was it that designated the Soviet Sports Palace an architectural heritage site? If it was the Soviets, what has this to do with Independent Lithuania? If, however, it was Independent Lithuania that made this designation, then rectification is long overdue. Indeed, the government of Lithuania should recognize the Shnipishkes Jewish cemetery as a heritage site of the Jewish community of Vilnius from the 16th through the 19th centuries. It should certainly not condone and perpetuate the Soviet desecration of a Jewish cemetery. That the EU supports such misuse of funds is nothing short of scandalous. Surely, there is ample room in and around Vilnius for the construction of a Convention Center someplace other than smack in the center of historically, the single most important Jewish cemetery in Lithuania and one of the most important in all of Europe. Ms. Kukliansky labels those who disagree with her as “simply uninformed” or having a particular axe to grind. She does not entertain the possibility that building a Convention Center over a Jewish cemetery is not everybody’s cup of tea. I’m afraid it is Ms. Kukliansky who seems to be unaware of how many thousands of graves remain on the site, of how often bones have surfaced in recent years on the face of the cemetery,[13] and how despite prior agreements with the Lithuanian authorities, two entire buildings were constructed in recent years on the cemetery grounds.[14] Does she really believe – as she claims – that the construction of a $25,000,000 Convention Center will involve no excavation outside the present perimeters of the Soviet-era Sports Palace? Does she really believe – as she claims – that the type of activities that will take place in the renovated center will be in keeping with the special nature of the site? I wonder who is “simply uninformed.” Faina Kukliansky writes: “If anything, this should be a cause for celebration and a model for how governments in our part of the world should deal with similar challenges of respecting and protecting Jewish cemeteries and mass graves of Holocaust victims.” Nations of Eastern Europe take note! If you want to deal with respecting and protecting Jewish cemeteries, learn from the Vilnius experience. First remove and destroy all Jewish tombstones, and afterwards excavate wherever possible and destroy the remains of those who were buried there. Then build a Sports Palace or a Convention Center in the heart of the Jewish cemetery! Make certain that the new structures are designated architectural heritage sites, so that they cannot be dismantled. This should be followed by a celebration of how Jewish cemeteries have been respected and protected in the most proper fashion. Faina Kukliansky is to be congratulated for assuming the responsibility of leading a “small but resilient Jewish community.” Sadly, she makes no mention of the fact that heartfelt and pained voices have been raised by a number of distinguished members of her small community, voicing strong opposition to the construction of the Convention Center in the Jewish cemetery.[15] But there is another issue here. Faina Kukliansky is much too modest in thinking that the “small and resilient Jewish community” of Vilnius is her only constituency. The Vilnius Jewish cemeteries belong not only to Vilnius and its Jewish community. The spiritual, as well as the genetic, descendants of the thousands of men and women buried in the Shnipishkes and Zaretcha Jewish cemeteries live the world over. They remember their ancestors, study their writings, often live by their teachings, and should have the right to pray at their graves in a cemetery not desecrated by a Convention Center. Faina Kukliansky would do well to weigh carefully the consequences of the precedent she is setting. By lending her support to the construction of a Convention Center over the old Jewish cemetery, she places in jeopardy every Jewish cemetery in Europe and, perhaps, elsewhere as well. True, she claims that she relies on a rabbinic ruling issued by the CPJCE in London. Distinguished rabbis the world over, however, have raised their voices in unison against the construction of a Convention Center in the old Jewish cemetery, rendering the London opinion – at best – a minority one. These voices include the leading halakhic authorities in Israel[16] and the United States,[17] and the present heads of the great yeshivot that once graced Lithuania, which due to the Holocaust and Soviet repression had to resettle elsewhere.[18] Faina Kukliansky would also do well to remember the voice raised long ago by her pre-World War II predecessor in Vilna, Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzenski. He did not allow the Polish government to desecrate the very Jewish cemetery that is about to be desecrated by the Lithuanian government with her approval. Sid Leiman Professor Emeritus of Jewish History and Literature Brooklyn College September 13, 2015 Erev Rosh Ha-Shanah 5776 Notes: [1] Laimonas Briedis, Vilnius: City of Strangers (Vilnius, 2009), p. 168. [2] Briedis, op. cit., p. 195. [The Briedis quotes have been slightly edited by me for the sake of clarity. -SL] אגרות ר’ ,.See Yaakov Kosovsky-Shahor, ed [3] Bnei Brak, 2000), vol. 1, pp. 400-401. Cf. Dov) חיים עוזר Jerusalem, 2002), vol. 3, p. 1142. See) הגאון ,Eliach also the brief notice in Israel Klausner, וילנא .Tel-Aviv, 1983), vol. 2, p) ירושלים דליטא: דורות האחרונים 554. [4] For a concise history of the old Jewish cemetery in Vilna, see קורות בית העלמין הישן בוילנה ,Israel Klausner (Vilna, 1935). [5] In general, see Kosovsky-Shahor, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 400-405. [6] Kosovsky-Shahor, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 402-403. [7] A soccer field, just north of the old Jewish cemetery, was initiated in 1936 and eventually became Zalgiris Stadium when construction was completed by the Soviets in 1950. See Antanas Papshys, Vilnius: A Guide (Moscow, 1980), p. 127. It is still in use in Vilnius. [8] For a moving account of his funeral, see Yosef Friedlander, “The Day Vilna Died,” Tradition 37:2 (2003), pp. 88-92. [9] Faina Kukliansky’s statement was translated from Lithuanian into English and posted on August 15, 2015 on the Lithuanian Jewish Community website here. For the full context of the “Convention Center on the Old Jewish Cemetery” controversy, and for a comprehensive paper trail of statements made by Faina Kukliansky and the various parties involved in the controversy to date, see here. This site exists due to the incredible industry of the indefatigable Professor Dovid Katz of Vilnius, who also has prepared a register of all public voices that have been raised in opposition to the proposed construction of a Convention Center on the old Jewish cemetery, available here. [10] One suspects that Ms. Kukliansky distinguishes between the land under the former Soviet-era Sports Palace (which, due to the excavations necessary for its construction, presumably led to the disposal of all Jewish remains that had been buried there) and the land surrounding the former Soviet-era Sports Palace (which presumably retains the remains of all those Jews who had been buried there). Thus, she feels comfortable with the construction of a Convention Center over the former Soviet-era Sports Palace. In terms of Jewish law, however, such a distinction is meaningless. Once a Jewish cemetery is consecrated it becomes a hallowed place, much like a synagogue. Like a synagogue, it cannot be used for secular purposes and it may not be desecrated in any way. And like a synagogue, it retains its sanctity whether or not Jews are actually present at any specific time or on a specific day. The Jewish cemetery remains hallowed in its entirety, even if all the remains have been removed from it; how much more so if remains are strewn throughout the cemetery! On the hallowed status of a Jewish ספר ,(cemetery, see, e.g., R. Jacob Moellin (d. 1427 .Jerusalem, 1989), laws of fasting, p) מהרי”ל: מנהגים שלחן to ,אליהו רבה על ספרי הלבושים ,R. Elijah Shapira ;270 .note 39; and R. Judah Ashkenazi (d ,ערוך אורח חיים 581:4 and R. Samuel Kolin ,באר היטב ,(circa 1742 In all .שלחן ערוך אורח חיים to 581:4 ,מחצית השקל ,(d. 1806) the passages just cited, ,מקום קדוש every Jewish cemetery is described as a i.e. a holy place – which is precisely why Jewish cemeteries are designated as places appropriate for prayer. When a municipal office building, or an apartment house, or a convention center is constructed on a Jewish cemetery, it as an act of desecration. Ms. Kukliansky seems upset about “the outrageous claims that a desecration is taking place.” The claims are hardly outrageous; it is the desecration that is taking place that is outrageous. That a Jewish cemetery retains its hallowed status even if some or all the remains are removed from it and buried elsewhere is an official ruling of many rabbis, including R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (d. 1995), one of the greatest halakhic decisors of modern ,(Jerusalem, 1999) שו”ת מנחת שלמה times. At vol. 2, responsum 88, p. 338, he rules unequivocally: “A Jewish cemetery, even if should happen that its remains have been exhumed, remains prohibited [for secular use, or for being sold to a second party], and always retains its אגרות,character as a Jewish cemetery.” Cf. R. Moshe Feinstein .New York, 1982), responsum 151, pp) משה: יורה דעה חלק ג 418-419. [11] This can be seen by examining maps of the Jewish cemetery prepared during the last 200 years, as well as detailed photographs of the Jewish cemetery taken in the last 100 years. Even U.S. intelligence reports released by Wikileaks concede that “the Sports Palace property indisputably rests in the middle of the former cemetery.” See here. [12] The Soviet-built Sports Palace, used primarily for volleyball and basketball games, was opened in 1971 and remained in use in Independent Lithuania until 2004. [13] The evidence here is shocking indeed. See, e.g., Binyomin Rabinowitz, “Can Anything Be Done to Save the Remnants of Vilna’s Old Jewish Cemetery,” Dei’ah VeDibur (August 31, 2005), pp. 1-9, available online here. [14] See, e.g., the Wikipedia entry on “Jewish Cemeteries of Vilnius”: “The Palace of Concerts and Sports (Lithuanian: Koncertų ir sporto rūmai) was built in 1971 right in the middle of the former cemetery. In 2005, apartment and office buildings were built at the site.” (here). [15] See, e.g., Ruta (Reyzke) Bloshtein’s stirring plea to the Lithuanian government online here. [16] E.g, Rabbi Samuel Auerbach of Jerusalem, son and successor of R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. [17] The list is much too long to be included here. Suffice to mention: Rabbi David Feinstein (head of Mesivta Tiferet Jerusalem), Rabbi Aharon Feldman (head of Ner Israel Rabbinical College), Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky (head of Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia), and Rabbi Aaron M. Schechter (head of Mesivta Chaim Berlin). [18] These include Rabbi Chaim Dov Heller, head of the Telz Yeshiva, formerly in Telshiai, Lithuania; Rabbi Osher Kalmanowitz, head of the Mirrer yeshiva, formerly in Mir, Greater Lithuania (today in Belarus); and Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler, head of the Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, formerly in Kleck and Sluck, Greater Lithuania (today in Belarus).

A Mild Case of Plagiarism: R. Abraham Kalmankes’ Ma’ayan Ha-Hokhmah

A Mild Case of Plagiarism: R. Abraham Kalmankes’ Ma’ayan Ha- Hokhmah by Shnayer Z. Leiman 1. The Accusation.

Rabbi Joseph Samuel ben R. Zvi (d. 1703) – more popularly served as a member of – ר’ שמואל ר’ חיים ר’ ישעיה’ס known as the rabbinic court in Cracow for some 26 years, after which he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Frankfurt in 1689.1 An avid collector of books and manuscripts, he made good use of them in listing in the margins of his copy of the Talmud variant readings, emendations, and annotations to the text of, and commentaries on, the Babylonian Talmud. These were published posthumously in the Amsterdam and Frankfurt editions of the Talmud, 1714-21. Today, they are incorporated in every edition of the Vilna Talmud, and every student of the Talmud benefits from the efforts of this great rabbinic scholar.2 One of the many tasks of the leading rabbis in the 17th and 18th centuries was to write letters of approbation on behalf of mostly young rabbinic scholars seeking to publish their manuscripts. R. Joseph Samuel wrote some 40 such letters of recommendation during his lifetime, not an insignificant number in those days.3 This, despite the fact that he looked askance at the recommendations that many of his colleagues were writing, and was less than impressed by the quantity and quality of books being published. Indeed, at one point he called for – and apparently instituted – a moratorium on the publication of rabbinic works in Germany, claiming that many of them were superfluous and some were even harmful.4 On January 2, 1701, R. Joseph Samuel wrote a letter of approbation for a kabbalistic work by R. Mordechai Ashkenazi, an otherwise unknown author (then) who was a protégé of the distinguished Italian rabbi and kabbalist, R. Abraham Rovigo and the letter of ,אשל אברהם d. 1713).5 The book, entitled) approbation, were published later in 1701 in Fürth. After a lengthy critique of the proliferation of works on Kabbalah in the late 17th century, the letter reads, in part:6 They [the new authors of kabbalistic works] are guilty of two evils. First, they neither know nor understand the deeds of God. Second, they cause the common folk to slight the rabbis expert in the exoteric Torah. The common folk assume that rabbis not expert in Kabbalah are not true scholars. So they cast away their expert rabbis, listening instead to the enchanters, whose wisdom is borrowed from others. I can testify that this is true [i.e., that the enchanters’ wisdom is borrowed from others], for I was involved in such a case. I recall vividly how some fifty years ago I owned a copy of a delightful Some upstart .התחלת חכמה kabbalistic work entitled student, a novice with no knowledge based on accumulated learning, printed the book under his own name. He simply plagiarized the entire book.

2. The Identity of the Plagiarized Book. has ever appeared in print. It התחלת חכמה No book entitled therefore could not have been plagiarized by anyone. Moreover, R. Joseph Samuel did not reveal the name of the plagiarist and the title of the book in its plagiarized form. This literary riddle was first raised in print early in 1976 by the noted bibliophile, Abraham Schischa of London.7 The solution was not long in coming. That same year, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi, also a noted bibliophile, solved the riddle.8 He correctly as the title of a kabbalistic book in התחלת חכמה identified manuscript form, still available in a variety of contemporary and it מעין החכמה libraries.9 In book form, it was entitled first appeared in print in Amsterdam in 1652.10 The plagiarist under his own name was R. Abraham מעין החכמה who published Kalmankes of Lublin. Ashkenazi provided other useful information as well, but all that is important for our purposes is that he clearly identified R. Abraham Kalmankes as a plagiarist. As such, he agreed fully with R. Joseph Samuel’s characterization (in his letter of approbation) of the novice upstart student. The late Professor Gershom Scholem also identified R. Abraham Kalmankes as a plagiarist. He would write:11 והוא [ר’ אברהם קלמנקס] הדפיס ס’ התחלת חכמה הגניבה [כך כתוב] על ,שמו .וכבר יש רמז לדבר בהסכמת הרב מפרנקפורט לס’ אשל אברהם “He [R. Abraham Kalmankes] published the pirated book entitled Hathalat Hokhmah under his own name. The matter is alluded to in the letter of approbation by the rabbi of Frankfurt to the book entitled Eshel Avraham.”

It is our contention that R. Abraham Kalmankes has received less than a fair hearing in the court of modern scholarship. If we reopen the investigation, it is because much of the evidence has either been misconstrued or overlooked. The reader will have to decide for himself whether or not Kalmankes was, in fact, a plagiarist, and whether or not he should be better remembered for his seminal contribution to Jewish teaching and literature. .מעין החכמה .3 a) Claims of the Author/Editor the first book to appear under R. Abraham ,מעין החכמה Kalmankes’ name, is a short introduction to Lurianic Kabbalah. Indeed, it was among the earliest such works to appear in print. The title page of the quarto sized volume is followed by a one-and-a-half page introduction (pages 2-3). The introduction is followed by the text (pp. 4-22), which perhaps more ,(פרקים) consists of 78 tightly-knit chapters properly labeled today as paragraphs. Thus, several of the “chapters” consist of no more than15 lines of print (and, sometimes, even less). Scattered throughout the book are occasional comments in parentheses. These may reflect an educational tool used by the original author to clarify a difficult term by means of a gloss, creating — in effect — what we would call today a footnote. Or, as appears likely, these may reflect a second hand, i.e., material added to the base text by someone other than the author, e.g., a later editor of the original manuscript. Our immediate concern, however, will not be with the book’s content or structure, but rather with its authorship. What are the claims of the title page and the introduction? What do they tell us about the authorship of ?מעין החכמה The title page basically announces the content of the book.12 It is a kabbalistic manual, we are informed, the likes of which has yet to appear in print. It provides the kabbalistic underpinning upon which all of R. Isaac Luria’s teachings rest. The title page then indicates that the book’s secret teachings are being brought to press [ by “the exceedingly wise and young [תעלומים הוציא לאור:Hebrew divine kabbalist, R. Abraham, son of the Gaon, Chief Rabbi and Head of the Yeshiva, R. Aryeh Leib, scion of the Kalmankes family of Lublin.” Note that the phrase “being brought to press by” is ambiguous. It is unclear from the title page whether R. Abraham Kalmankes is being presented as the author, .מעין החכמה editor, or publisher of We perforce turn to the introduction, which – if read carefully – resolves much of the ambiguity of the title page.13The introduction, written and signed by R. Abraham Kalmankes, begins with a justification for the book’s publication. Briefly, Kalmankes, himself a victim and survivor of the Chmielnitzki massacres, informs the reader that he was puzzled by the seemingly endless exile of the Jews, with redemption nowhere in sight. After much reflection – and deeply influenced by kabbalistic teaching – Kalmankes concluded that it was faulty prayer that was prolonging the exile of the Jewish people. Jewish prayer was not piercing the heavens and reaching God on high. He compared the state of the Jewish people to a ship adrift at sea, with no one on board who knows how to steer the ship to safety. Nothing will change, argued Kalmankes, until kabbalistic teaching spreads throughout the Jewish communities. The seeds of redemption were planted by R. Isaac Luria, the master of proper kabbalistic prayer. Alas, he died before redemption set in, but he left a successor, R. Hayyim Vital, who in turn left “a basket full of manuscripts,” i.e. he reduced to writing the kabbalistic teachings of R. Isaac Luria, especially those relating to prayer. Once these teachings were mastered by Jews the world over, redemption would be at hand. Unfortunately, “the basket full of manuscripts” was not being made available to the Jewish community at large. Kalmankes explains that those who horde the manuscripts refuse to publish them. This, for two reasons. First, for reasons of vanity. By retaining the manuscripts for themselves, they became the masters of esoteric teaching and the power brokers to whom all had to turn for guidance. Second, for reasons of profit. The owners of the manuscripts charged a hefty price for those who wished to view and copy them. Kalmankes decided to put an end to this scandalous state of affairs by acquiring and publishing one of the manuscripts that preserved some of the key esoteric teachings of R. Isaac Luria. Moreover, he “added a few comments of his own, in order to benefit the many readers,” almost certainly a reference to the comments in parentheses mention above. He gave the manuscript a new Wellspring of Knowledge], for “just as a] מעין החכמה ,title wellspring begins with a narrow opening that ultimately widens as it fills with water, so too this book begins with nuggets of wisdom that broaden and deepen as one grows in wisdom.” Kalmankes concludes the introduction with the following signature: “These are the words of the youngest member of the group, Abraham, son of my father and teacher Rabbi Aryeh, son of the Gaon, our teacher and rabbi, the honorable R. Joseph Kalmankes Yaffe of Lublin.” b) Editions relates to the מעין החכמה Some of the confusion surrounding multiplicity of published kabbalistic works with the some of which have been mistakenly ascribed ,מעין החכמה title to Kalmankes in library catalogues throughout the world. Confusion surrounding Kalmankes’ alleged plagiarism is also due, in part, to variant readings that appear in the later for which Kalmankes can hardly ,מעין החכמה printed editions of be held responsible. After brief mention of some unrelated we will list and ,מעין החכמה kabbalistic works with the title מעין ’describe each of the printed editions of Kalmankes .החכמה ascribed) מעין חכמהAn anonymous kabbalistic treatise entitled ארזי in part to Moses) is included in the collection entitled מעין ’Venice, 1601).14 It is unrelated to Kalmankes) לבנון The Ashkenazic printing house of the partners Judah .החכמה Leib b. Mordecai Gimpel and Samuel b. Moses Ha-Levi published מעין yet another anonymous kabbalistic treatise entitled Amsterdam, 1651).15 Frequently reprinted, it too is) החכמה .מעין החכמה ’unrelated to Kalmankes have appeared מעין החכמה ’Four different editions of Kalmankes in print. They are: Amsterdam, 1652. Printed by the Immanuel ,מעין החכמה .1 Beneviste publishing house during the lifetime of its author/editor Abraham Kalmankes, it is the only reliable As such, we will claim that .מעין החכמה ’edition of Kalmankes Kalmankes can be judged only on the basis of this, and no For a detailed description of .מעין החכמה other, edition of the book, its title page, and introduction, see above.16 Koretz, 1784. This edition was printed by the ,מעין חכמה .2 Johann Anton Krieger publishing house which, in Koretz, was devoted to the publishing of kabbalistic and hasidic works.17 Although Kalmankes’ title of the book is retained, the title page ascribes the book to R. Isaac Luria and makes no mention of Abraham Kalmankes. More importantly, this edition omits Kalmankes’ introduction to the book. The text is a slightly revised and updated version of the Kalmankes edition. It incorporates most of Kalmankes’ parenthetical notes, with slight revision.18 The text was edited in its present form sometime between 1698 and 1784, i.e. well after Kalmankes’ death.19 .Polonnoye, 1791. Printed by the Samuel b ,מעיין חכמה .3 מעין Yissokhor Baer Segal publishing house, this edition of appears at the end of a collection of kabbalistic works החכמה is accorded ספר הר אדני. מעיין חכמה :whose title page reads no title page of its own. It begins with a skewed version of .הקדמת המחבר ספר מעיין חכמה :Kalmankes’ introduction, entitled No such title is applied to Kalmankes’ introduction in the first edition. We have already indicated (see above) that the introduction is omitted entirely from the second edition, so no such title appears there. The introduction to this, the אברהם בן :third edition, closes with the name of the author In the first .מהו’ ארי’ בן הגאון מה’ משה יוסף קלמן מלובלין edition, however, Kalmankes’ grandfather’s name is given with ,הגאון מורנו ורבנא כמוהר”ר יוסף קלמנקס ייפה מלובלין :as The text that follows is .קלמן or משה no mention of either התחלת החכמה האלהות כפי דרך האר”י אשכנזי ז”ל הנקרא :entitled It differs considerably from the text .ספר מעיין החכמה published in the first two editions. It mostly lacks Kalmankes’ parenthetical comments strewn throughout the first two editions. It regularly omits readings that appear in the first two editions, and often adds material that is lacking in the first two editions. Indeed, it is a different manuscript version of the Lurianic digest that was first published by Kalmankes in 1652.20 Lvov, 1875. No publisher’s name is given. This ,מעין החכמה .4 is a hybrid version drawn from two earlier printed editions. Kalmankes’ introduction is drawn from the skewed version that accompanies the Polonnoye, 1791 edition. The text is drawn from the Koretz, 1784 edition.21 As such, this edition has no independent value and requires no further discussion. c) Relationship of the Published Editions to the Extant Manuscripts No one has written more intelligently about the history of Lurianic kabbalistic manuscripts than Yosef Avivi.22 What follows is essentially a brief account of the relationship and the מעין החכמה’between the published editions of Kalmankes extant manuscripts, based largely (but not entirely) upon the results of Avivi’s investigations. Numerous manuscripts copies of the kabbalistic treatise most of them dating to the 17th and ,התחלת החכמה entitled 18th centuries, are extant in libraries throughout Europe, Israel, and the U.S. While they vary slightly from each other, they clearly reflect a single recension of an early 17th century kabbalistic treatise. The anonymous treatise, whose original title is unknown, was written by a disciple of Luria in Damsascus and then sent to Italy. There, the manuscript was copied and circulated under a variety of names ,קונטרס ההיכלות, כללי חכמת שיעור קומה, התחלת החכמה such as It was precisely because a manuscript copy .התחלת חכמה and .came into the possession of R. Joseph Samuel b התחלת חכמה of R. Zvi of Cracow sometime prior to 1652, that he was so .מעין החכמה startled when he saw Kalmankes’ printed edition of Even after the printed edition made its debut in 1652, new manuscript copies of the kabbalistic treatise were written and circulated under a variety of titles, now including the .מעין החכמה title manuscripts formed the התחלת החכמה Avivi has shown that the first part of a larger Lurianic treatise that originally included a second part as well. Whereas the first part focused עולם the second part focused on ,עולם האצילות entirely on and is extant in manuscript form only. The two parts — הבריאה were separated from each other, and largely due to Kalmankes’ publication, the first part became an independent work is an מעין החכמה ’In sum, Kalmankes .מעין החכמה entitled accurate copy (with the addition of occasional glosses by Kalmankes) of an anonymous early 17th century Lurianic treatise that circulated widely under a variety of titles, .התחלת החכמה including the title 4. R. Abraham Kalmankes. a) Family History The accusation of plagiarism leveled against R. Abraham Kalmankes by R. Joseph Samuel b. R. Zvi, and seconded by both R. Shmuel Ashkenazi and Gershom Scholem, was not accompanied by any discussion of R. Abraham Kalmankes himself. When and where did he live? How did he make a living? What other books did he author? Was he an inveterate plagiarizer?23 Had such an investigation been conducted, we suspect that the accusation of plagiarism would not have been leveled at all. In a brief biographical account of Kalmankes published in 1992, the author of the account bemoans the fact that so little is known about Kalmankes’ life history.24 Nonetheless, much more is known about him – and his family — than the meager snippets of information recorded in the 1992 מעין biographical account or in the standard discussions of We will take as our point of departure the clear .החכמה to his מעין החכמה reference in Kalmankes’ introduction to distinguished grandfather, “the Gaon, our Teacher and our Rabbi, R. Joseph Kalmankes Yaffe of Lublin.” For our purposes, what is most important about the grandfather is that after an illustrious rabbinic career in Lublin, he spent his last years in Prague, where he died, and remains buried to this day.25 The elaborate epitaph on his tombstone informs us that he died at the age of 56 on Sunday,13 Tishre, in the year 5397 (= October 12, 1636).26 The significance of this information will become apparent shortly, but first we need to turn elsewhere. In 1678, at the family owned printing press in Lublin, R. Abraham Kalmankes published the only other work he would it is a masterful ,ספר האשל publish in his lifetime. Entitled (and typical seventeenth century) rabbinic commentary on the book of Genesis.27It was the first installment of a planned commentary on the entire Torah, but apparently the rest of the commentary either never materialized or was never published. The commentary is essentially a midrashic-halakhic work, replete with citations from the Midrash, Talmud, Codes and kabbalistic ,(שלחן ערוך especially R. Joseph Karo’s) literature. The volume itself is accompanied by a series of letters of recommendations by rabbis from Kremenitz, Lublin, Brisk, Pinsk, Grodno, Vilna,28 and more, all attesting to Kalmankes’ rabbinic scholarship. Once again, Kalmankes prefaced his work with an informative introduction. Kalmankes alludes to the many trials and tribulations that accompanied him through life, including hazardous trips to Egypt and the land of Israel. He was near death on several occasions during his travels, but managed to make his way back safely to Lublin.29 Upon his return, he undertook to publish two works in his lifetime. This, in order to fulfill the talmudic dictum: “Happy is he who arrives here [i.e., on High] with his talmudic teaching in hand.”30 Since according to biblical teaching, a matter is established by “two witnesses,” Kalmankes was determined to author two books and publish them, so that he would have them “in hand” when necessary. The first ,intended for a more or less popular audience ,ספר האשל ,book took the form of a commentary on the book of Genesis. The was intended for talmudic ,ברכת אברהם second book, entitled scholars only. Kalmankes informs us that the manuscript copy was completed and that he looked forward to its ברכת אברהם of publication. Sadly, it was never published. What needs to be noted immediately is that Kalmankes never imagined that his could count as one of his מעין החכמה earlier publication of “two witnesses”! (And this was in 1687, long before R. Joseph Samuel b. R. Zvi leveled his accusation of plagiarism in is not mentioned at all in מעין החכמה ,Indeed (.1701 Clearly, he did not .ספר האשל Kalmankes’ introduction to consider it a book that he had authored. Elsewhere in the introduction, Kalmankes notes that he will ,from his grandfather דברי תורה make a special effort to cite א”א זקני מ”ו הגאון“ :R. Joseph Kalmankes, who he describes as ”.מוהר”ר יוסף קלמנקס, זצ”ל, אשר מנוחתו כבוד בק”ק פראג Kalmankes adds that upon his grandfather’s death in Prague, all of his writings were lost, and that he – Kalmankes – will therefore record his grandfather’s teachings as he heard them from his disciples. “For,” explains Kalmankes, “I merited to sit at his feet only until the age of ten. Thus, I was a child, and have no real knowledge of his novellae.” We, of course, cannot be certain whether Kalmankes sat at his grandfather’s feet in Lublin or Prague (or both). If only in Prague, and if Kalmankes was ten years old when his grandfather died, we have the latest possible date of birth for Kalmankes, namely 1626, for we have already established that Kalmankes’ grandfather died in 1636. Kalmankes, of course, could have been born earlier than 1626, and we have reason to believe that this was the case. At the other end of the spectrum, it seems likely that R. Abraham Kalmankes died somewhere between 1678 and 1701. That he was still alive in 1678 is attested by the publication in that year, and by several of the letters of ספר האשל of recommendation dated 1678, all of which describe Kalmankes as alive and well. Since Kalmankes never responded to the devastating accusation of plagiarism made against him in 1701 by a leading rabbinic contemporary, it is probably safe to assume that he died before the accusation appeared in print. Though we cannot pinpoint the year of his death with precision, the most likely candidates are either 1692 or 1693. Kalmankes died in Lvov, where he served on its rabbinic court The text of the epitaph on his tombstone was copied דיין.as 31 and published in 1863 and reads:32 שנת תתן אמת ליעקב ביום טוב נהפך כי טוב פעמים ואבל ומספד ונהי בכפלים ט”ו בחודש ניסן נגנז צנצנת המן המאיר באספקלריא המאירה כבוד מורינו ורבנו ומאורנו נתבקש בישיבה של מעלה הגאון האלוף עין הגולה מו”ה אשר יעקב אברהם בן הרב מוהר”ר אריה קלמנקש צלל במים אדירים של תורה וחיבר ס’ אשל אברהם על שמו נקרא ובשביל שזיכה את הרבים יבוא שלום וינוח על משכבו בשלום תנצב”ה Thus, Kalmankes died on 15 Nisan on a Tuesday.33 But in which year? The text states unequivocally that it was in the year תתן whose numerical value was embedded in the biblical phrase But the copyist (in 1863) informed his readers אמת ליעקב.34 that, due to an erasure, he could no longer determine which letters from the phrase were enlarged or highlighted on the original tombstone. This makes it difficult, but not impossible – as we shall see – to calculate Kalmankes’ approximate year of death. Since Kalmankes died on the first day of Passover which fell on a Tuesday, seven candidates (between the years 1678 and 1701) present themselves: 1679, 1686, 1689, 1692, 1693, 1696, and 1699. The Hebrew equivalents for these years are: [5]439, [5]446, [5]449, [5]452, [5]453, [5]456, and [5]459. Now the numerical value of a combination must add up exactly תתן אמת ליעקב of letters from the phrase to one or more of the above Hebrew dates. Only two solutions are possible: [5]45235 and [5]453.36 These are 1692 and 1693, respectively.37 In sum, if we had to give mostly approximate dates for the three generations of the Kalmankes family mentioned by R. Abraham Kalmankes in both of his publications, they would be: R. Joseph Kalmankes: 1580-1636 R. Aryeh Kalmankes: 1600-167038 R. Abraham Kalmankes: 1620-169339 ספר האשל in מעין החכמה b) Citation from Critical for our discussion is the fact that R. Abraham It is the only ספר האשל!in his 40 מעין החכמה Kalmankes cites The passage reads:41.ספר האשל in מעין החכמה reference to או יאמר מאמר הר”י ז”ל באשר נקדים מאמר מהאר”י לור”י[א] הנזכר בספר מעיין החכמה …אשר הביאותיו לבית הדפוס בפ’ י”ד שבשעת הבריאה Or we can explain this by citing a passage from R. Isaac of blessed memory, i.e., by first introducing a passage by R. Isaac Luria Ashkenazi — which is which ,מעיין החכמה mentioned in chapter 14 of the book I brought to press [literally: to the publishing house] — which states that during the period of creation… the passage cited by ,מעין החכמה If one examines chapter 14 of appears exactly as referenced, but ספר האשל Kalmankes in Luria’s name appears nowhere in the text of chapter 14! This was a repository of Lurianic מעין החכמה is precisely because teaching which he – Kalmankes – brought to press. Kalmankes never claimed authorship of the book, and he tells us so in his own words in 1678, long before any accusation was leveled against him. 5. Conclusions. Ultimately, whether or not Kalmankes is viewed as a plagiarist will depend largely on one’s definition of plagiarism.42 In terms of literary (as distinct from oral) plagiarism, a reasonable definition would seem to be: Plagiarism is the act of appropriating in print another person’s ideas, writings, or words, and passing them off as one’s own by not providing proper attribution to their original source. Even aside from the definition itself, the moral opprobrium attached to any specific act of plagiarism will depend on a variety of factors. Thus, it seems to me, that the more literal and lengthy the borrowing, the more heinous the offense. Motive too will surely play a role in determining the severity of the offense. We turn to the specifics of the Kalmankes case.One can certainly sympathize with R. Joesph Samuel’s outrage when, in the 1650’s, he chanced upon a copy He leafed through its .מעין החכמה of the recently published pages and realized instantaneously that it was virtually word for word a printed copy of a manuscript he owned under the Worse yet, prominently displayed on the .התחלת חכמה title title page of the pirated book was the name of the “divine kabbalist,” R. Abraham Kalmankes, a name otherwise unknown to R.Joseph Samuel. He could only conclude that this was a blatant case of plagiarism that called for condemnation. Indeed, he was still upset about the matter some fifty years later! is מעין החכמה But, as we have seen, the title page of somewhat ambiguous about Kalmankes’ role in its authorship and הוציא publication. It simply states that Kalmankes i.e., he published the secret or hidden ,תעלומים the לאור digest of Lurianic teaching. One suspects that R. Joseph .מעין החכמה Samuel never examined Kalmankes’ introduction to Had he done so, he surely would have noticed that Kalmankes admits openly that he is publishing a manuscript that contains a digest of Lurianic teaching, authored by a disciple of Luria – and not by him. Kalmankes’ states unequivocally that his contribution to the volume is limited to the few comments he added (almost always in parentheses) and to the new he provided for it. It is only in the third ,מעין החכמה ,title published in Polonnoye, 1791 – long ,מעין החכמה edition of after Kalmankes’ death – that a skewed version of Kalmankes’ in effect ,הקדמת המחבר ספר מעיין חכמה :introduction is labeled Anyone .מעין החכמה suggesting that Kalmankes was the author of who reads this skewed version of Kalmankes’ introduction, and compares it to the original, will realize at once that it is was created in 1791 in order to harmonize its content with that of a different manuscript version of the Lurianic digest (one that lacked Kalmankes’ comments) that was being attached to it.43 We have also the clear evidence from Kalmankes’ published by him in 1678, that he ,ספר האשל introduction to sought to author and publish two books in his lifetime, so as not to be embarrassed when he was called “on High.” He provides the titles of both books, yet makes no mention of the מעין fact that he had authored and published a book called He knew full well that this was a book written by .החכמה others, which he had brought to press. Indeed, as we have When doing so, he .ספר האשל in his מעין החכמה seen, he cited stated openly that it was a Lurianic work that he had brought to press. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence here for was based מעין החכמה ’plagiarism, as defined above. Kalmankes upon a Lurianic manuscript that was anonymous and was circulating under a variety of titles. Kalmankes never claimed authorship of the manuscript, and indicated clearly that all he did was to provide the manuscript with a new title and some brief annotation. This he did for the best of motives, namely to bring about the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people. He did not pass off the work as his own (other than the title and the annotations, which were legitimately his own creation); he withheld no proper attribution. On the other hand, three distinguished scholars, R. Joseph Samuel of the seventeenth century, and R. Shmuel Ashkenazi and the late Professor Gershom Scholem of the twentieth century, were persuaded that Kalmankes was a plagiarist. Perhaps they felt that the appearance of Kalmankes‘ name on the title page אב בחכמה ורך בשנים“ preceded by the words ,מעין החכמה of with no mention of any manuscript or ”,המקובל האלוהי כמוהר”ר attribution to others, was sufficiently misleading – and, perhaps, even deliberately intended – to create the impression that Kalmankes was the author of the book. If so, they would argue, he deserves to be listed among the plagiarizers. I am not persuaded that this is the case, but in deference to the three distinguished scholars mentioned above, I have allowed the title of this essay to read as it does. At best (or: worst), it is a mild case of plagiarism, if even that.44 NOTES 1 For biographical studies of R. Joseph Samuel b. R. Zvi, see H.N. Dembitzer, .Cracow, 1893), vol. 2, pp. 144b-152b; M) כלילת יופי Horovitz, Frankfurter Rabbinen (Jerusalem, 1969), ed. J. Unna, pp. 94-97 and 296-297; and idem, Jerusalem, 1972), ed. J. Unna, pp. 67-69 and) רבני פרנקפורט אבני ,For the epitaph on his tombstone,idem see .212 .Frankfurt, 1901), p. 151. For legendary accounts of R) זכרון .p. 2b, in Y.I ”תולדות יצחק,“ ,Joseph Samuel, see E. Sternhell שרי ,Paks, 1898); and Y.L. Maimon) באר יצחק ,Billitzer .Jerusalem, 1955), vol. 1, pp. 231-233) המאה 2 For an assessment of R. Joseph Samuel’s contribution to the עמודים בתולדות ,printed text of the Talmud, see Y. S. Spiegel ,Ramat-Gan, 2005), second edition) הספר העברי: הגהות ומגיהים pp. 404-407. .Lakewood, 2008), ed. S) מפתח ההסכמות ,See L. Loewenstein 3 Eidelberg, pp. 99-100. 4 H.N. Dembitzer, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 150a. חלומותיו של השבתאי ר’ מרדכי ,See G. Scholem 5 נתיבי אמונה ,Jerusalem, 1938); and Y. Tishby) אשכנזי Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 81-107. Cf. the historical) ומינות ,Jerusalem) יש מנחילין ,vignette in Rabbi P. Katzenellinbogen 1986), ed. Y.D. Feld, pp. 74-75. 6 The original reads: ושתים רעות עושים כי לא ידעו ולא יבינו אל פעולות השם, גם גורמים להשניא בעיני המון את חכמי תורה שבנגלה, כסבורים העם דמאן דלא ידע האי לאו גברא רבה הוא, ומשליכים אחרי גיום חכמים חרשים ושומעים לקול מלחשים, אשר בטליתות שאינן שלהם מלבשים, כאשר בקושטא קא אמינא בדידי הוה עובדא, נהירנא זה חמישים שנה שבידי ספר נחמד כתוב על חכמת הקבלה נקרא תחלת חכמה, והנה קם מאן דהו .תלמיד חדש שישן אין בו והדפיסו על שמו, והנה גנוב הוא אתו .pp ,(שלושה ספרים נעלמים,” עלי ספר A. Schischa, “1976)2 7 237-240. pp. 171-173. For ,(שתי הערות,” עלי ספר S. Ashkenazi, “1976)3 8 see ,עלי ספר an expanded version of Ashkenazi’s comments in ,Jerusalem) אסופה: ארבעה מאמרים מאוצרות הר”ש אשכנזי שליט”א his הערת העורך,” עלי“ ,pp. 49-53. Cf. S.Z. Havlin ,(2014 .p. 134 ,(ספר 11(1984 9 These include the National Library in Jerusalem, the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and a host of other libraries in Europe and the United States. For an early description of two such manuscripts in the National Library in Jerusalem, see G. Jerusalem, 1930), p. 63, manuscript) כתבי יד בקבלה ,Scholem 2512, and p, 117, manuscript 47. The Bodleian Library lists in its collection. See התחלת חכמה some 10 manuscript copies of A. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and in the College Libraries of Oxford (Oxford, 1886), column 1001. Cf. the corrections to these listings in M. Beit-Arie and R.A. May, eds., Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscript in the Bodleian Library: Supplement of Addenda and Corrigenda (Oxford, 1994), passim. A manuscript was in the private library of R. Joseph התחלת חכמה copy of ,(Basel, 1631) נובלות חכמה Solomon Delmedigo in 1631. See his p. 195a. The precise title of the book varies in the and התחלת חכמה manuscripts, with the most common titles being .התחלת החכמה 10 See L. Fuks and R.G. Fuks-Mansfeld, Hebrew Typography in the Northern Netherlands 1585-1815 (Leiden, 1984), vol. 1, pp. 176-177, entry 233. 11 See the undated loose page, in Scholem’s hand, appended to at the National Library in מעין חכמה Scholem’s copy of ספריית גרשם שלום בתורת הסוד היהודית: .Jerusalem. Cf .Jerusalem, 1999), vol. 1, p. 312, entry 4188) קטלוג 12 See the scan of the title page.

13 See the scan of the introduction.

14 The title is so listed on the pages of the treatise itself ,ארזי הלבנון pp. 46b-47a. On the title page of ,ארזי הלבנון in The frequent and easy interchange .מעיין החכמה it is listed as and the מעיין and מעין between the spellings characterizes virtually all the החכמה and חכמה spellings printed editions of the various books bearing these titles. 15 L. Fuks and R.G. Fuks-Mansfeld, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 195, entry 270, 16 Only a handful of copies are extant world wide. To the best מעין ’of my knowledge, the first edition of Kalmankes has not been photo-mechanically reproduced, and it is החכמה not available online (as of the date this note was recorded). Nor is it available on any of the standard electronic אוצר ,collections of rabbinic literature, such as HebrewBooks I am indebted to the National Library .אוצרות התורה or ,החכמה in Jerusalem and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York for making their copies available to me. The scans of the title page and the introduction are reproduced here courtesy of the Bibliotheca Rosenthalia, now in the Special Collections of the University of Amsterdam (online catalogue: http://permalink.opc.uva.nl/item/001748453). ,Antwerp) תולדות הדפוס העברי בפולניא ,H. D. Friedberg 17 1932), p. 61. ספר One key revision appears on p. 1, chapter 2, where 18 is referenced. The book is not mentioned in the ויקהל משה nor could it have ,מעין החכמה ’first edition of Kalmankes was not published until 1698. The ספר ויקהל משה been, since Dessau, 1698). It) ויקהל משה ,reference is to R. Moshe Graf does not appear likely that Kalmankes saw Graf’s work in was published in 1652 and מעין החכמה manuscript form, since Graf was born in 1650. 19 For the date of Kalmankes’ death, see below. The Koretz, 1784 edition was photo-mechanically reproduced in Jerusalem, 1970. -was photo מעיין חכמה The Polonnoye, 1791 edition of 20 mechanically reproduced in Jerusalem, n.d. (circa 1998), in a thin, dark blue, hardbound volume whose spine and outer cover In) .הר אדני and whose title page reads ,צדיק יסוד עולם read other words, when seeking a copy in a bookshop of the reprint whatever else ,מעיין חכמה of the Polonnoye, 1791 edition of (.מעיין חכמה you do, don’t ask for a copy of 21 As noted by S. Ashkenazi (see above, note 8), the title page of the Lvov edition indicates that its text is based upon the Koretz edition, and reproduces the very biblical phrase used by the Koretz edition for indicating its original date of publication in 1784. But by highlighting a different set of letters within the same biblical phrase, the Lvov edition announces to the reader that its date of publication is 1875. . Jerusalem, 2008), 3 volumes,passim) קבלת האר”י ,Y. Avivi 22 See especially vol. 1, pp. 204-208, 443; and vol. 2, pp. כתבי האר”י באיטליה עד שנת“ ,See also, idem .840-841 ,565-568 הערה,” עלי“ pp. 91-134; and ,(ש”פ”,” עלי ספר 11(1984 .p. 133 ,(ספר 12(1986 23 “Plagiarism is something people may do for a variety of reasons but almost always something they do more than once.” So T. Mallon, Stolen Words: Forays into the Origins and Ravages of Plagiarism (New York, 1989), preface, p. xiii. .to the reissue of R ”,פתח דבר“ ,Rabbi M.Y.S. Goldenberg 24 .(Brooklyn, 1992) ספר האשל ’Abraham Kalmankes 25 On R. Joseph Kalmankes Yaffe of Lublin, see J. Kohen- .St. Petersburg, 1898), pp. 59-76; S. B ) שבת אחים ,Zedek Lublin, 1920), second) ,לקורות היהודים בלובלין ,Nissenbaum ,Cracow, 1895), p. 89) אנשי שם ,edition. pp. 36-37; S. Buber צפונות יוחסין (א),“ ,entry 217; and S. Englard .p. 680, note 6 and p. 694, note 36a ,(“ ישורון 3(1997 ;Prague, 1856), German section, p. 46) גל עד ,See K. Lieben 26 Hebrew section, pp. 34-35. Lublin, 1678). Few copies) ספר האשל ,R. Abraham Kalmankes 27 have survived. For the copy at the Bodleian Library, see M. Steinschneider, Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (Berlin, 1860), vol. 1, column 752, entry 4458:1; and A.E. Cowley, A Concise Catalogue of the Hebrew Printed Books in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1929), p. 45. For the copy at the British Library, see J. Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the British Museum (London, 1867), p. 14. For the copy at Yeshiva University’s Mendel Gottesman Library, see London, 1959), p. 31, entry 534. To the) אהל ברוך ,B. Strauss ספר ’best of my knowledge, the first edition of Kalmankes has not been photo-mechanically reproduced, and is it not האשל available online (as of the date this note was recorded). Nor is it available on any of the standard electronic collections ,אוצר החכמה ,of rabbinic literature, such as HebrewBooks A new edition of this exceedingly rare volume .אוצרות התורה or was made available by Rabbi M.Y.S. Goldenberg (Brooklyn, 1992) and we are indebted to him. Nonetheless, one needs to use this new edition with caution; the text has been “improved” for the modern reader. A comparison of the texts of the title page, as they appeared in 1678 and 1992, serves as an indicator of the occasional liberties taken with the text. A seemingly enigmatic woodcut (opposite the opening page of the commentary on Genesis) depicting a Jew (Kalmankes?) drawing water from a and framed in an elaborate frame marked – (?מעין החכמה) well by two angelic beings holding up a crown inscribed with the was not reproduced in the 1992 edition. See – כתר תורה words the attached scans:

28 The letter of recommendation from Vilna, dated 1673, was written by its Chief Rabbi, R. Moses b. David Kramer (d. 1687), the paternal great-great-grandfather of the Vilna Gaon. 29 These vicissitudes of life may account for the additional אשר is identified as ספר האשל first names of Kalmankes, who in For the practice of changing names and/or .יעקב אברהם קלמנקס adding additional first names when confronted by difficult ,Jerusalem) ספר חסידים ,circumstances, see R. Judah He-Hasid 1957), ed. R. Margulies, p. 214, paragraph 245 and notes. Cf. .Jerusalem, 2000), vol. 1, pp) כתר שם טוב ,A. Teherani 293-315. 30 B. Pesahim 50a and parallels. 31 S. Buber, op. cit., p. 45, entry 101. ,Lemberg, 1863), second edition) מצבת קודש ,G. Suchestow 32 vol. 1, no pagination, entry 32. signals that ביום טוב נהפך כי טוב פעמים The opening line 33 כי Kalmankes died on a holiday that fell on the day when was said twice. The next line identifies the holiday as 15 טוב was כי טוב Nisan, i.e., the first day of Passover. The day said twice refers, of course, to the third day of creation, i.e. Tuesday. See Gen. 1:10 and 12. 34 Buber, loc. cit., writes with confidence that the which would indicate that ,אמ”ת highlighted letters are Kalmankes died in [5]441 or 1681. But in 1681, the first day of Passover fell on a Thursday, not on a Tuesday. Suchestow was more circumspect, indicating it was no longer possible to determine which of the engraved letters were enlarged or highlighted. He left the problem unresolved. The usual practice for highlighting was the placement of a protruding dot over the engraved letters that were to be used for reckoning the year of death. The problem cannot be resolved by ט”ו instead of ט”ז בחודש ניסן emending the second line to read since the second day of Passover can never fall on ,בחודש ניסן .שלחן ערוך, אורח חיים, סימן תכח: א a Tuesday. See .’תתן אמ’ת’ לי’עקב By highlighting the letters 35 .’תתן א’מ’ת’ לי’עקב By highlighting the letters 36 37 These dates are based upon the assumption that the text of Kalmankes’ epitaph, as copied and published by Suchestow in 1863, is an accurate copy of the original. But this may not be .is marred by egregious errors מצבת קודש the case. Suchestow’s He sometimes copied and published as many as four different versions of the same epitaph! In another instance, he divided an epitaph into two parts, creating two dead persons when only one was called for. See the critiques of Suchestow in S. Buber, op. cit. (above, note 25), pp. vi-viii and in R. p. 113 ( and ,(לתולדות אנשי שם סיני Margulies, “”,1949-50)26 throughout the later installments to this essay published ’between 1950 and 1952). Given that Kalmankes סיני in tombstone was close to 200 years old when it was copied in 1863, it is likely that the epitaph could be read only with great difficulty. While any attempt at emending the received text is speculative, a slight emendation of the first lines of the epitaph yields the following text: שנת תתן אמ”ת ליעקב ביום טוב נהפך טוב פעמים ואבל ומספד ונהי בכפלים ט”ו בחודש ניסן נגנז צנצנת המן המאיר באספקלריא המאירה יום The sense would be that Kalmankes died on 15 Nisan, on was twice overturned. It was overturned טוב on a day when ,טוב first, because every day of the week of creation was described ;(with the exception of the second and seventh days)טוב as a holiday. This would ,יום טוב and second, because it was allow for 15 Nisan to fall on a Thursday, and indeed in 1681 the first day of Passover ,(אמ”ת the numerical equivalent of) fell on a Thursday. If so, Kalmankes may well have died in 1681. 38 These dates are an approximation. We know only that R. Aryeh Kalmankes died in 1671 or earlier, as his name appears in several letters of approbation dated 1671 ברכת המתים with .ספר האשל and appended to 39 These dates, as well, are an approximation. For possible evidence that R. Abraham Kalmankes died in 1681, see above, note 37. If Kalmankes was born in 1620, he would have been 32 was published in 1652. This fits מעין החכמה years old when It .רך בשנים well with his description on its title page as a also fits well with R. Joseph Samuel’s characterization of him (at the time) as an “upstart student.” It would also mean that ספר he was nearing 60 years of age in 1678, when he published This fits well with his bemoaning the fact – in the .האשל introduction to the volume – that the hair on his head and beard had turned gray and that old age was overtaking him. 40 It is astonishing that the author of the most comprehensive study of the Kalmankes family, J. Kohen- ,see above, note 25), concluded on pp. 67-68) שבת אחים ,Zedek were two different ספר האשל and מעין החכמה that the authors of people named Kalmankes (cousins, of course)! Among his proofs was unaware of ספר האשל is the alleged fact that the author of Alas, Kohen-Zedek overlooked the .מעין החכמה the existence of המחבר“ :passage cited here. So too Gershom Scholem, who wrote [של ספר מעין החכמה] לא הזכיר את הספר בספריו הוא, כגון ספר See the loose page in Scholem’s hand and the Scholem ”.האשל Library Catalogue, referred to above, note 11. Scholem, however, did not conclude with Kohen-Zedek that the authors were two different people. Even ספר האשל and מעין החכמה of more astonishing is the fact that the late bibliophile, R. Reuven Margulies, cited Kohen-Zedek’s conclusion approvingly. ,(לתולדות אנשי שם בלבוב,” סיני See R. Margulies, “1949-50)26 p. 219. It appears likely that Scholem (in part) and Margulies were misled by Kohen-Zedek. Lublin, 1678), p. 8b. We have printed the text as) ספר האשל 41 it appears in the first edition. In the 1992 edition, it appears on p. 29 as follows: או יאמר באשר נקדים מאמר הר”י לוריא הנזכר בספר מעיין החכמה אשר …הביאותיו לבית הדפוס בפ’ י”ד, שבשעת הבריאה 42 In general, see A. Lindey, Plagiarism and Originality (New York, 1952); T. Mallon, op. cit. (above, note 23); and J. Anderson, Plagiarism, Copyright Violation and Other Thefts of Intellectual Property: An Annotated Bibliography with a Lengthy Introduction (Jefferson, North Carolina, 1998). מעין Thus, in the introduction to the first edition of 43 :Kalmankes states ,החכמה I added) וגם מעט מזער מדעתי הוספתי אך לזכות הרבים היא כוונתי but a few comments of my own; my only intention is to benefit the many). In the Polonnoye, 1791 edition this was radically וגם מעט מזער מדעתי לא הוספתי אך לזכות הרבים היא :changed to I added not even the fewest of comments of my own; my) כוונתי only intention is to benefit the many). This change was made necessary because the kabbalistic manuscript now appended to Kalmankes’ introduction, and being published together with it for the first time, did not contain Kalmankes’ additional comments. 44 I am deeply grateful to Rabbi Menachem Silber for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this essay. The errors that remain are entirely mine. Who is Buried in the Vilna Gaon’s Tomb? A Contribution Toward the Identification of the Authentic Grave of the Vilna Gaon

Who is Buried in the Vilna Gaon’s Tomb? A Contribution Toward the Identification of the Authentic Grave of the Vilna Gaon by Shnayer Z. Leiman 1. Prologue This essay attempts to identify the authentic grave of the Vilna Gaon (d. 1797).1 As will become apparent, it surely is not the grave that Jewish pilgrims are shown today when they visit Vilna. We shall attempt to identify his על פי שני עדים :authentic grave by applying the biblical rule a matter is established by the testimony of two“ יקום דבר witnesses.” We shall cite two different kinds of witnesses. ,.i.e ,תורה שבכתב One witness will represent primarily literary evidence. The other witness will represent .i.e., oral history , תורה שבעל פה primarily 2. Introduction Three Jewish cemeteries have served the Vilna Jewish community throughout its long history. The first Jewish cemetery, often called by its Yiddish nameder alter was north of the early modern ,(בית עולם הישן :feld (Hebrew Jewish Ghetto of Vilna, and just north of the Vilia River (today called the Neris) in the town of Shnipishok. It served as the main Jewish cemetery until 1830, when, due to lack of space, it was closed by the municipal authorities. The following photograph, taken in 1912, presents an aerial view of the first Jewish cemetery, looking north from Castle Hill in the old city. One can see the Neris River flowing south of the cemetery; portions of the fence surrounding the cemetery; and the house of the Jewish caretaker of the cemetery near the north-western entrance to the cemetery. (Each of the following images may be enlarged and viewed in higher resolution by clicking on them.)

Such famous rabbis as R. Moshe Rivkes (d. 1671), and R. Avraham Danzig (d. 1820), author ,באר הגולה author of were buried in der alter feld. See the following ,חיי אדם of .in the old cemetery חיי אדם photograph for the grave of the

The second Jewish cemetery, in use from 1831 until 1941, was east of Vilna proper, on a mountain overlooking the nearby neighborhood called Zaretcha. Here were buried famous Maskilim such as Adam Ha-Kohen Lebensohn (d. 1878), and famous rabbinic scholars such as R. Shmuel Strashun (d. 1872), R. Avraham Avele Pasvaler (d. 1836), R. Shlomo Ha-Kohen (d. 1906), and R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzenski (d. 1940). With 70,000 graves in place in 1940, the second cemetery ran out of space, and a third Jewish cemetery was acquired and dedicated by the Vilna Jewish community shortly before the outbreak of World War II. It lies north-west of central Vilna, in Saltonishkiu in the Sheshkines region, and is still in use today by the Jewish community in Vilna. The Vilna Gaon, who died in 1797, was, of course, buried in the first Jewish cemetery. That cemetery was destroyed in the Stalinist period circa 1950, but just before it was destroyed we are informed by the sources that the Gaon was moved, perhaps temporarily to the second cemetery,2 but certainly to the third cemetery, where he rests today. Let us enter the third cemetery and stand before the Ohel ha-Gra.

It is a modest and narrow Ohel. When one enters the Ohel, one sees seven graves laid out from left to right, with five tombstones embedded in the wall at the heads of the graves. The tour guides inform the visitors that the Gaon is buried in the fourth grave from the left. Indeed, directly above his grave, embedded in the wall, is a tombstone that clearly identifies the grave as that of the Gaon. One wonders who else is buried in the Ohel. The narrow confines of the Ohel, and the poor lighting in the Ohel, make it almost impossible to read the tombstones. One American publication identifies the others as R. Shlomo Zalman, the father of the Gra (d. 1758); R. Avraham, the son of the Gra (d. 1809); R. Yehoshua Heschel, Chief Rabbi of Vilna (d. 1749); R. Shmuel b. Avigdor, last Chief Rabbi of Vilna (d.1793); R. Avraham and Avraham b. Avraham, the ;חיי אדם Danzig, author of legendary Ger Zedek of Vilna. Another American publication presents a different list that includes R. Moshe Rivkes, .and Traina, the mother of the Gaon , באר הגולה author of the In Israel, several published lists know for a fact that R. Shmuel Strashun was moved together with the Gaon, and now rests in the new Ohel. All these accounts are imaginary.3 When one reads the accounts of the reinterment of the Gaon, and of those buried in his Ohel today, it becomes apparent than more than bodies were moved. Wherever possible, the original tombstones were moved together with the dead and then reset at the head of the graves. All one has to do is read the tombstone inscriptions in order to identify who was moved. Reading from left to right, buried in the Ohel ha-Gra are: 1. R. Zvi Hirsch Pesseles (d. 1817). A relative of the Gaon, whose grandfather, R. Eliyah Pesseles (d. 1771), helped finance the Gaon’s study activity. 2. R. Yissachar Baer b. R. Shlomo Zalman (d. 1807). A younger brother of the Gaon, he was a master of rabbinic literature who was also adept in the exact sciences. 3. R. Noah Mindes Lipshutz (d. 1797). Distinguished Kabbalist, He .נפלאות חדשות and פרפראות לחכמה he was the author of married Minda (hence: Mindes), the daughter of R. Eliyahu Pesseles, mentioned above (grave 1). A close associate of the Gaon during his lifetime, he and the Gaon share a single tombstone in death. 4. The Gaon. 5. Minda Lipshutz (date of death unknown). She was the daughter of R. Eliyah Pesseles and the wife of R. Noah Mindes Lipshutz. 6. Devorah Pesseles (date of death unknown). She was the wife of R. Dov Baer Pesseles, a son of R. Eliyahu Pesseles, and the mother of R. Zvi Hirsch Pesseles (grave 1). The seventh grave is unmarked, that is, it is without a tombstone. The tour guides will tell you that it contains the ashes of Avraham b. Avraham, the legendary Ger Zedek of Vilna.4 A pattern emerges. Clearly, the original plot in the Shnipishok cemetery belonged to the Pesseles family, one of the wealthiest and most distinguished in Vilna. The Gaon found his resting place here due to the generosity of his relatives and friends in the Pesseles family. More importantly, when a hard decision had to be made in 1950 or so regarding who should be moved from the old cemetery in Shnipishok, it was not the greatest rabbis who were moved and reinterred. It was neither R. Moshe Rivkes, nor R. Yehoshua Heschel, nor R. Shmuel b. Avigdor, nor R. Avraham Danzig, nor R. Shmuel Strashun. Nor was it the Gaon’s father, mother, or son. It was the Gaon and the persons to his immediate right and left; the Gaon saved not only himself, but also those buried in proximity to him. 3. The Problem While the identification seems reasonable, the ordering of the graves is problematic. Anyone familiar with traditional Jewish cemeteries will know that some keep men and women separate, while others are mixed. Clearly, the old Jewish cemetery in Shnipishok was mixed. But even when mixed, husbands and wives tended to be buried next to each other. So too mothers and sons. Yet in the Ohel ha-Gra, R. Zvi Hirsch Pesseles is buried at the extreme left, whereas his mother Devora is buried at the extreme right. Neither is buried next to his or her spouse. Even more puzzling is the fact that the Gaon rests in between Rabbi Noah Mindes Lipshutz and his wife Minda Lipshutz. Now it may be that Rabbi and Mrs. Lipshutz were not on speaking terms, but this was hardly the way to decide where the Gaon should be buried.

The problem assumes prodigious proportions when we ,קורות בית-העולמין הישן בוילנה examine Israel Klausner’s published in Vilna in 1935. Klausner visited the Shnipishok Jewish cemetery, recorded some of the tombstone inscriptions of its most famous rabbis and, more importantly, drew a precise map of the location of each grave. It is important to note his orientation, as he drew the map. Klausner stood at the northern entrance to the Jewish cemetery, looking southward toward the Vilia River. See the depiction of the Ohel ha-Gra in Klausner’s map. The graves in the Ohel ha-Gra, from left to right, are numbered 20-27. Some of those numbers represent two graves of persons buried immediately next to each other. Klausner, in his narrative, identifies the occupants of graves 20-27 as follows: ר’ שלמה זלמן אבי הגר”א (a .20 ר’ אליהו (b שתדלן (ר’ יהודה ב”ר אליעזר (יסו”ד (a .21 (חיה אשת ר’ יהודה ב”ר אליעזר (יסו”ד (b ר’ צבי הירש פעסעלעס .22 דבורה פעסעלעס .23 מינדה פעסעלעס ליפשיץ .24 ר’ נח מינדעס ליפשיץ (a .25 הגר”א (b ר’ ישכר בער אחי הגר”א .26 ר’ יהושע העשיל ב”ר שאול .27 This, then, is a complete list of all those who were buried in the original Ohel ha-Gra in the old Jewish cemetery. That Klausner has the order perfectly right can be seen from the following photograph.

in פ”נ הגאון רבינו אליהו Notice the inscription the center of the photograph, near the roof-top of the Ohel. Turning to the extreme left of the Ohel, where the roof slopes down almost to the ground, one can see two grave markers above a single tombstone. When enlarged, the inscriptions above the פ”נ אבי :(tombstone clearly read (from left to right exactly in the order recorded by ,ר’ אליהו שתדלן and הגר”א Klausner (see above, grave number 20). When we compare Klausner’s list with the present occupants of the Ohel ha-Gra, it becomes clear that those who moved the Gra from the first to the third cemetery, moved the graves numbered 22-26, a total of six persons altogether, from the original Ohel ha- Gra. The seventh grave, unmarked, remains unidentified and could have come from any part of the old cemetery, and not necessarily from the Ohel ha-Gra. When we enter the Ohel ha-Gra today, we need to bear in mind that we are entering from the south and looking north. We see the mirror image of what Klausner depicted on his map. Thus the expected order today should be: The expected order solves all our problems. On the extreme right, Devorah and her son R. Zvi Hirsch are buried next to each other. In the center, R. Noah and his wife Minda are buried next to each other. And the Gra is second from the left. It is the actual order that creates our problem. Devorah and R. Zvi Hirsch are separated; neither is buried next to his or her spouse. The Gra is buried in between R. Noah Lipshutz .אין זה אומר אלא דרשני .and his wife Minda One more piece of evidence needs to be introduced before we attempt to solve the problem. Israel Cohen, British Zionist and world traveler, visited Vilna twice before World War II. Regarding the Shnipishok cemetery, he records the following: Most famous of all is the tomb of the Gaon Elijah, who lies in the company of a few other pietists on a spot covered by a modest mausoleum which is entered by an iron- barred door. The tombstones, with long eulogistic epitaphs, are not enclosed within the mausoleum, but stand at the back of it, in close juxtaposition and closely protected by a thick growth of shrubs and bushes.

Israel Cohen, Vilna (Philadelphia, 1943), pp. 415-416. Cf. his Travels in Jewry (New York, 1953), pp. 149-150. 4. The Solution It seems obvious that those who moved the Gaon to the new Jewish cemetery made one slight adjustment relating to the ordering of the graves. They moved R. Zvi Hirsch from the extreme right to the extreme left. We will never know with certainty why they did so. What was gained, perhaps, is that now all the males were together on the left, and all the females were together on the right. By moving R. Zvi Hirsch to the extreme left, the Gra was now the third grave from the left. But the actual order today appears to have the Gra as the fourth grave from the left, and buried in between R. Noah and his wife Minda. We need to remember that in the old Jewish cemetery the tombstones were outside the Ohel ha-Gra, each tombstone opposite the remains of the person it described, with text of the tombstone facing in a northerly direction. Indeed, every tombstone in the old Jewish cemetery was placed opposite the remains of the person it described, with the text of the tombstone facing in a northerly direction.

We also need to remember that the Gra and R. Noah shared one tombstone.5

The Gra’s epitaph was on the right side of the tombstone; R. Noah’s epitaph was on the left side of the tombstone. This was in perfect order, since inside the Ohel, the Gra was to the left of R. Noah, and R. Noah was to the left of, and next to, his wife Minda. In the new Jewish cemetery, the six graves were laid out exactly as in the old cemetery, with the exception of R. Zvi Hirsch as indicated. But it was decided to place the original tombstones inside the Ohel, at the head of each of the graves. Instead of facing in a northerly direction, with texts that could be read only by standing outside the Ohel, the tombstones, now reversed, faced in a southerly direction, with texts that could be read only when standing inside the Ohel. Doubtless, this was done in order to protect the historic tombstones from exposure to the elements, from deterioration, and from vandalism. Also, the tombstones now immediately identified who was buried in each grave. Unfortunately, when the single tombstone shared by the Gra and R. Noah was reversed and set up inside the Ohel, it automatically (and wrongly) identified the third grave from the left as R. Noah, and the fourth grave from the left as the Gra, and caused a split between R. Noah and his wife. In fact, the Gra is the third grave from the left, and R. Noah is the fourth grave from the left – and R. Noah is properly buried next to his wife Minda. In other words, all Jews who visit the grave of the Gra today, pray, and leave qvitlach, at the wrong grave (i.e., at the grave of R. Noah Mindes Lipshutz). The above solution was based upon an examination of the literary evidence, and upon an examination of עד photographs preserved mostly in books. I call this תורה one witness), that is, the testimony of) אחד i.e., the literary evidence). But a matter established) שבכתב by only one witness is precarious at best.6 Intuitively I was persuaded by the one witness, but hesitated to put the solution in print until more evidence was forthcoming. בבחינת Fortunately, a surprise second witness has come forward .i.e., oral history). Rabbi Yitzhak Zilber (d) תורה שבעל פה 2003) was a courageous Jew who lived most of his life under Soviet repression between the years 1917 and 1972, before ultimately settling in Israel. He published a riveting autobiography in Russian in 2003. It has since been translated into Hebrew and English. In his autobiography, Zilber describes how in 1970, under Communist rule, he visited the Ohel ha-Gra in Vilna. The Jew who took him to the Ohel had participated in the transfer of the Gra from the first Jewish cemetery in Shnipishok to the third Jewish cemetery in Saltonishkiu. As they stood before the Gaon’s grave, the Jew turned to Zilber and said:7 Remember the following forever: the Gaon’s tombstone is above the fourth grave from the left, but the Gaon’s body is in the third grave [from the left].

A matter is established by the“ !על פי שני עדים יקום דבר testimony of two witnesses.” NOTES 1 This essay should not be confused with an earlier essay of mine with a similar title, “Who is Buried in the Vilna Gaon’s Tomb? A Mysterious Tale with Seven Plots,”Jewish Action, Winter 1998, pp. 36-41. The primary focus of the earlier essay was on the identification of the six persons buried together with the Vilna Gaon in his mausoleum (the Ohel Ha-Gra). The primary focus of this essay is on the identification of the grave of the Vilna Gaon himself. A version of this essay was read at a conference in honor of Professor Daniel Sperber, held at Bar-Ilan University on June 13, 2011. It is presented here in honor of the Vilna Gaon’s 215th yahrzeit on 19 Tishre, 5773. 2 The claim that the Vilna Gaon was moved temporarily from the first to the second Jewish cemetery appears, among many other places, ,(Tel-Aviv, 1993) וילנא ירושלים דליטא חרבה ,.in Y. Alfasi, ed דער יידישער בית-עולם אין ווילנע” ירושלים,“ ,p. 9; Y. Epstein .October-November 1996, pp. 5-6; and N.N ,דליטא Shneidman, Jerusalem of Lithuania (Oakville, Ontario, 1998), p. 161. An examination of eye-witness accounts of the reburial of the Gaon, and of much other evidence, yields the ineluctable conclusion that the Gaon was moved only once, directly from the first to the third Jewish cemetery. 3 See the references cited in the Jewish Action essay (above, note 1). 4 So reads the Hebrew sign above the entrance to the Ohel Ha- Gra. But the Ohel Ha-Gra was constructed over a three-year period between 1956 and 1958. I cannot say with certainty when the sign first went up, but logic dictates it did not go up before there was an Ohel. In all the early photographs of the Ohel I have seen, there was no sign at all. It surely wasn’t there during the period of Soviet domination of Lithuania, which means it first when up sometime after 1991. As such, it is hardly evidence for who is buried in the Ohel Ha-Gra. More importantly, one of the participants in the reinterment of the Vilna Gaon testified that he and his colleagues wanted to move the remains of Avraham ben Avraham, the Ger Zedek of Vilna, but could not locate his ashes in the old Jewish cemetery. See R.Yitzchak Zilber, To Remain a Jew (Jerusalem, 2010), pp. 389-390. 5 For side by side transcriptions of the epitaphs on their tombstone, in clear Hebrew font, see R. Noah Mindes .Brooklyn, 1995), p. 17) פרפראות לחכמה ,Lipshutz 6 I was plagued by the remote possibility that the movers, precisely because the shared tombstone required the Gaon to be to the right of R. Noah, switched the remains of the Gaon and R. Noah, and deliberately buried the Gaon in between Minda and R. Noah. (I considered this a remote possibility, because it is highly unlikely that any rabbi would allow such tampering with who was buried to the immediate left and right of the Gaon. As is well known, R. Hayyim Zvi Shifrin [d. 1952] presided over the reinterment of the Gaon. See R. Yaakov Jerusalem, 1981], pp. 26-30.) If so, all] קול יעקב ,Shifrin the tombstones are accurately positioned in the Ohel Ha-Gra, even today. Cf. my deliberations in American Jewish Monitor , October 24, 2003, p. 18. 7 R. Yitzchak Zilber, op. cit. (above, note 4), p. 389.

The Golem of Prague in Recent Rabbinic Literature

The Golem of Prague in Recent Rabbinic Literature

by: Shnayer Z. Leiman a rabbinic journal of repute – an – המאור In a recent issue of anonymous notice appeared on the Golem of Prague.1 Apparently, a rabbi in Brooklyn had publicly denied the authenticity of the Maharal’s Golem, claiming that R. Yudel Rosenberg (d. Piotrkow, 1909) – was the first) נפלאות מהר"ל in his – (1935 to suggest that the Maharal had created a Golem. According to the rabbi based his claim, in part, on ,המאור the account in the fact that no early Jewish book records that the Maharal had created a Golem. In response to the denial, the anonymous notice lists 6 “proofs” that the Maharal of Prague, in fact, created a Golem. Here, we list the 6 “proofs” in translation (in bold font) and briefly discuss the weight they should be accorded in the ongoing discussion of whether or not the Maharal created a Golem.

1. How could anyone imagine that a [Jewish] book written then [i.e., in the 16th century] could include a description of how Jews brought about the deaths of numerous Christians? At that time, the notorious censors censored even more fundamental Jewish teachings. Fear of the Christian authorities characterized every move the Jews made, from the youngest to the oldest.

The argument is presented as a justification for the lack of an early account of the Maharal and the Golem. Only in the 20th century could the full story appear in print, as it Apparently, the author of the .נפלאות מהר"ל appears in The volume does .נפלאות מהר"ל anonymous notice has never read not depict how “Jews brought about the deaths of numerous Christians.” If the reference here is to the punishment meted out by the Golem to the Christian perpetrators of the blood never depicts the Golem as bringing about נפלאות מהר"ל ,libel the death of anyone, whether Christian or Jew. If the נפלאות מהר"ל ,reference here is to the blood libel itself describes only how Christian criminals plotted against Jews (by means of the blood libel) and subsequently needed to be brought to justice by the Christians themselves. Nowhere are Jews described as bringing about the deaths of numerous Christians.

This argument, of course, does not prove that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century. 2. The Maharal’s creation of the Golem is alluded to on his epitaph, in the line that reads: “It is not possible to relate.” More proof than this in not necessary.

The full line on the epitaph reads as follows: “For him, praise best remains silent, for in any event it is not possible to relate the full impact of his many good deeds.”2 ד"ה סמא דכולא ,See Psalm 65:2 and cf. Rashi to b. Megillah 18a .Nothing is said – or hinted – here about a Golem .משתוקא Alas, more proof than this is necessary indeed.

,נפלאות מהר"ל If this was an invention of the author of .3 how come a storm was not raised up against him when he published his book a century ago? Although one solitary voice was raised up against him, the majority of Gedolei Yisrael greeted his book with esteem, especially since its author was the noted and respected Gaon, author of numerous works, Rabbi Yehudah Yudel Rosenberg.

First, it should be noted that R. Yudel Rosenberg did not invent the notion that the Maharal of Prague had created a Golem. Evidence for the Maharal’s Golem dates back to 1836 (before R. Yudel Rosenberg was born).3 If the rabbi in Brooklyn claimed otherwise, he was mistaken. Thus, the claim in 1909 that the Maharal of Prague had created a Golem occasioned little or no surprise.

Second, R. Yudel Rosenberg ascribed the book to R. Yitzchok b. R. Shimshon Katz, the son-in-law and contemporary of the Maharal. R. Yudel described in great detail how he had managed to come into possession of this rare manuscript.4 There was no immediate reason to suspect that this was a literary hoax, especially coming from the hand of R. Yudel Rosenberg.

Third, had the book contained pejorative material about the Maharal, a storm would surely have been raised against it. Instead, the book presented the Maharal as a master kabbalist, who created the Golem in order to stave off the notorious blood libel accusations against the Jews. Why should anyone have protested against this heroic image of the Maharal?

In any event, even if one concedes that “the majority of Gedolei Yisrael greeted his book with esteem” (a dubious claim that cannot be proven), it surely does not “prove” that the Maharal created a Golem. A book published in 1909 is hardly proof that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century. 4. Chabad Hasidim relate in detail how R. Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn visited the attic of the Altneu shul in Prague and saw what he saw. He wasn’t the first to do so – as reported by various elders – in the last 400 years. Indeed, a long list of the names of the famous and not-so- famous who visited the attic of the Altneu shul can easily be drawn up. That the sainted Rebbe, R. Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, visited the attic of the Altneu shul is established fact. It is recorded in contemporary documents, i.e, in the Sichos and Letters of his successor, the Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson.5 Exactly what the Rebbe saw in the attic is less certain. According to one account, when asked, R. Yosef Yitzchok chose not to respond.6 According to another account, he reported that he saw ”what remained of him,” i.e., of the Golem.7 For Lubavitchers, this may be unassailable proof that the Maharal created a Golem, and perhaps that is as it should be. But for historians, dust – or even a bodily form – seen in an attic early in the 20th century hardly constitutes proof that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century. As a matter of fact, it should be noted that extensive renovation took place in the attic of the Altneu shul in 1883. No evidence of the Golem was discovered then.8 A film crew visited and filmed the attic in 1984. No evidence of the Golem was discovered then.9 5. No one disputes the fact that the Maharal put an end to the blood libel accusations that the Jews had suffered for generations. And even this was not fully spelled out in the Can someone explain how the Maharal .[נפלאות מהר"ל ,.book [i.e accomplished this?

The rhetorical question at the end of the fifth “proof” presupposes the existence of the Golem. Only by means of the Golem was the Maharal able to counter the blood libel accusations. No one disputes that the Maharal put an end to the blood libel accusations? Quite the contrary, no one has ever discovered a shred of evidence that links the Maharal to staving off a blood libel accusation! Nowhere in his writings, nowhere in the writings of his contemporaries (Jewish and non- Jewish) and disciples, is there a word about the Maharal’s involvement in staving off a blood libel accusation. That he put an end to the blood libel accusation is historically untrue. While the blood libel charge became less frequent in the Hapsburg lands after the 16th century, it hardly disappeared.10 From the 16th through the 18th centuries, the blood libel accusation largely shifted to Eastern Europe. In Poland alone, between 1547 and 1787, there were 81 recorded cases of blood libel accusation against the Jews.11 The Beilis case is a sad reminder that the blood libel accusation continued into the 20th century as well.12

Needless to say, this argument hardly proves that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century. to 18 Elul,13 a citation from a מליצי אש I saw in .6 manuscript copy of a letter by the Maharal from the year 5343 [=1583] addressed to R. Yaakov Ginzburg, describing how he [the Maharal] was directed by Heaven to create a Golem in order to save the Jewish people. See there for details.

The manuscript referred to here is a notorious 20th century forgery of a letter ascribed to the Maharal, itself based upon .The Munkatcher Rebbe, R .נפלאות מהר"ל R. Yudel Rosenberg’s Hayyim Eleazar Shapira (d. 1937), apparently was the first of many to expose this forgery.14

II

R. Hayyim Levi added 4 new ,המאור In a subsequent issue of “proofs” that the Maharal created a Golem.15 A brief summary of each of the new “proofs” is followed by an even briefer discussion of the weight they should be accorded in the ongoing discussion of whether or not the Maharal created a Golem. cites a responsum from שם הגדוליםin his 16 חיד"א The .1 -who in turn cites a letter by R. Naftoli Ha חכם צבי,the 17 Kohen of Frankfurt,18 who mentions his ancestor the Maharal adds that he חיד"א who made use of the Holy Spirit.” The“ heard an awesome story about the Maharal and a revelation he had which led to a private conversation between the Maharal and the King of Bohemia.

Not a word about the Golem of Prague appears in any of these sources. Indeed, where we can examine the available evidence it ,(חיד"א in the case of the awesome story heard by the) apparently had nothing to do with a Golem.19 of Yeshivat Hakhmei משגיח ,R. Shimon of Zelikhov .2 Lublin, said: “Everyone knows that the Maharal made use of the Sefer Yetzirah and created a Golem. I don’t claim that one needs to believe the tales in the storybooks about the Maharal. But it is clear that the Maharal used the book of Yetzirah and created a Golem.”20

R. Shimon of Zelikhov, a great gaon and zaddik, died as a martyr in 1943.21 His claim in the 20th century, however weighty, does not prove that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century. the author writes that he heard אלף כתב,In the book 22 .3 from the Spinka Rebbe23 in 1922 that he saw an original letter of the Maharal that described how and why he created the Golem.

This is the same notorious 20th century forgery listed as a “proof” above, section I, §6. For the refutation of this proof, see the reference cited in note 14. which records a story in the name סיפורים נחמדים,See 24 .4 of R. Yitzchok of Skvere25 about the Maharal, the Golem, and קבלת שבת at the מזמור שיר ליום השבת the double recitation of service.

This story, first published in 1837,26 is one of the oldest of the Maharal and the Golem stories. It was retold by R. Yitzchok of Skvere, and published in Yiddish (in 1890) and Hebrew (in 1903). Wonderful as the story may be, it cannot be adduced as “proof” for an alleged event that occurred some 300 years earlier.

—————————

Even aside from the dictates of rationalism, what militates against the notion that the Maharal created a Golem is the fact that nowhere in his voluminous writings is there any indication that he created one. More importantly, no contemporary of the Maharal – neither Jew nor Gentile in Prague – seems to have been aware that the Maharal created a צמח דוד Golem. Even when eulogized, whether in David Gans’ 27 or on his epitaph (see above), not a word is said about the creation of a Golem. No Hebrew work published in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries (even in Prague) is aware that the Maharal created a Golem.28

In this context, it is worth noting that R. Yedidiah Tiah Weil (1721-1805),29 a distinguished Talmudist who was born in Prague and resided there for many years – and who was a קרבן disciple of his father R. Nathaniel Weil (author of the and of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, both of them long time (נתנאל residents of Prague – makes no mention of the Maharal’s Golem.

R. Yedidiah Tiah Weil

R. Nathaniel Weil

This, despite the fact that he discusses golems in general, and offers proof that even “close to his time” golems existed. The proof is a listing of famous golems, such as the golems created by R. Avigdor Kara (d. 1439) of Prague30 and R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem (d. 1583) of Chelm.31 Noticeably absent is any mention of the Golem of the Maharal of Prague.32

Note too that the first sustained biographical account of the Maharal – by a distinguished rabbinic scholar from Prague – was published in 1745.33 It knows nothing about a Golem of Prague. The deafening silence of the evidence from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries needs to be addressed by those who are persuaded that the Maharal created a Golem. in המאור The cumulative yield of the “proofs” put forward in support of the claim that the Maharal created a Golem is perhaps best described as an embarrassment of poverty. In the it would ,המאור light of what passes for historical “proof” in a reputable rabbinic journal – would – המאור seem that probably do well to focus more on halakhah and less on Jewish history.

III commemorated the 400th anniversary of the המאור Whereas Maharal’s death by focusing on the imaginary accounts of the Maharal and the Golem, scholars in the Czech Republic are to be congratulated for commemorating the 400th anniversary by designing a magnificent exhibition of the Maharal’s life and works and displaying it at the Prague Castle. The exhibition was accompanied by an even more magnificent printed volume edited by Alexandr Putik and entitledPath of life (and referred to several times in the notes to this posting). Despite the many excellent studies in the book devoted to the Maharal’s life and thought, much space – some will argue too much space – is devoted to the history of the Golem in art, the essays ,המאור sculpture, film, and theater. In contrast to in Path of Life assume that the Golem of Prague was legendary, not a fact. Here, we reproduce one of the many imaginary paintings of the Maharal and the Golem displayed at the exhibition and included in the volume. It was done by Karel Dvorak in 1951.33

Not to be outdone, the Czech post office issued a commemorative stamp to mark the 400th anniversary of the death of the Maharal. It features an imaginary portrait of the Maharal wearing a European casquette, reminiscent of the one used to wear in Radun. The first day cover חפץ חיים the includes an imaginary portrait of the Golem as well.

One wonders if the Maharal, prescient as he was, ever imagined that this is how he would be remembered on the 400th anniversary of his death!

Notes

הילולא קדישא הארבע מאה של המהר"ל מפראג זי"ע:“ ,Anonymous .1 .Ha-Ma’or 62:4 (2009), p. 95 ”יצירת הגולם 2. The Hebrew original reads: .See O . לו דומיה תהלה כי אין מספרים לרוב כח מעשי[ו] הישרים ,Jerusalem ,כתובות מבית-העלמין היהודי העתיק בפראג ,Muneles Prague, 1856, Hebrew ,גל עד ,p. 273. Cf. K. Lieben ,1988 section, p. 3. 3. See S. [the author asked that I not reveal his name], “An Earlier Written Source for the Golem of the Maharal from 1836,” at On the Main Line, November 4, 2009. Cf. S. Leiman, “The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London,” Judaic Studies 3(2004), p. 20, n. 34; and see below, n. 32, for evidence from 1835 that may link the Maharal and the Golem.

.Piotrkow, 1909, pp. 3-4 , נפלאות מהר"ל .4

תורת מנחם: ,See, e.g., R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson .5 .Brooklyn, 1992, vol. 1, p. 6 ,התוועדויות

6. See previous note.

7. Copy of a hand-written note by R. Menachem Mendel ,issue 798 ,כפר חב"ד Schneerson published in the periodical 1998. The Hebrew reads in part: בנוגע לעיקר הענין (שהמהר"ל עשה את הגולם), בעצמי שמעתי מכ"ק מו"ח אדמו"ר שראה הנשאר ממנו בעליית בית הכנסת דמהר"ל פראג.

The full text of the letter is also available online at למה נקרא שמו "ברוך http://theantitzemach.blogspot.com, entry Tuesday, April 27, 2010, incomment a by Anonymous ,"דוב posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 12:28 A.M. I am indebted to Zalman Alpert, reference librarian at the Mendel Gottesman Library of Yeshiva University, for calling my attention to the online version (and to many other important references over the many years we have known each other).

Yet a third account, drawn from a conversation with Rebbetzin Chana Gurary, a daughter of R. Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, provides even more detail. Rebbetzin Gurary reported: I then asked him [her father, the Rebbe] to tell me what he had seen there. My father paused for a moment and said: “When I came up there, the room was filled with dust and shemus. In the center of the room I could see the form of a man wrapped up and covered. The body was lying on its side. I was very frightened by this sight. I looked around at some of the shemus that were there and left frightened by what I had seen.

Special thanks to Rabbi Shimon Deutsch for providing me with a copy of Rebbetzin Gurary’s testimony, as reported to Rabbi Berel Junik.

8. See N. Gruen, Der hohe Rabbi Loew, Prague, 1885, p. 39.

9. See I. Mackerle, Tajemstvi prazskeho Golema, Prague, 1992. Cf. his “The Mystery of Prague’s Golem,” December 12, 2009, at http://en.mackerle.cz.

10. See, e.g., R. Po-chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder, New Haven, 1988, pp. 203-209.

11. See Z. Guldon and J. Wijaczka, “The Accusation of Ritual Murder in Poland 1500-1800,” Polin 10(1997), pp. 99-140.

12. For basic bibliography on the Beilis case, See S. Leiman, “Benzion Katz: Mrs. Baba Bathra,” Tradition 42:4 (2009), pp. 51-52, n. 1.

Vranov, 1932. In the three ,מליצי אש ,Rabbi A. Stern .13 מליצי volume Jerusalem, 1975 photomechanical reproduction of .the passage appears in vol. 2, p. 87 ,אש

14. For discussion and references, see S. Leiman, “The Letter of the Maharal on the Creation of the Golem: A Modern Forgery,” Seforim Blog, January 3, 2010.

.Ha-Ma’or 63:1 (2009), p ”המהר"ל זי"ע“ ,R. Hayyim Levi .15 84.

, שם הגדולים השלם ,(R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (d. 1806 .16 Jerusalem, 1979, vol. 1, p. 124.

.ed ,שו"ת חכם צבי, סימן ע"ו ,(R. Zvi Ashkenazi (d. 1718 .17 Jerusalem, 1998, pp. 183-4.

18. Loc. cit. R. Naftoli Ha-Kohen Katz of Frankfurt died in 1719. Cf. below, n. 32.

.Piotrkow, 1905, pp ,שמן הטוב ,See Rabbi A.S. Michelson .19 118-120.

,Jerusalem, 1993 ,נהרי א"ש ,R. Avraham Shimon of Zelikhov .20 p. 173.

,Jerusalem, 1978, vol. 1 ,מאורי גליציה ,See M. Wunder .21 cols. 238-243; Jerusalem, 2005, vol. 6, cols. 105-106.

.Bnei Brak, 1997, vol ,אלף כתב ,(Rabbi Y. Weiss (d. 1942 .22 2, pp. 47-48.

23. R. Yitzchok Eizik Weiss (d. 1944). On him, see T.Z. Rabinowicz, The Encyclopedia of Hasidism, London, 1996, pp. 534-5.

.Zhitomir, 1903, pp ,ספורים נחמדים ,Y. W. Tzikernik .24 13-14. Tzikernik’s hasidic tales were reissued by G. Nigal in ,Jerusalem, 1994. In Nigal’s edition ,סיפורי חסידות צירנוביל the story about the Maharal and the Golem appears on pp. 128-130. Tzikernik, who died circa 1908, was a follower of R. Yitzchok Twersky of Skvere (see next note) and recorded his stories for posterity.

25. On R. Yitzchok Twersky of Skvere (d. 1885), see Y. ,Jerusalem, 2000, vol. 2 ,אנציקלופדיה לחסידות: אישים ,Alfasi cols. 339-40.

26. The 1837 version appears in B. Auerbach,Spinoza , Stuttgart, 1837, vol. 2, pp. 2-3. See above, note 3, for a similar version of the story published in 1836. But the 1836 מזמור שיר version makes no mention of the double recitation of .service קבלת שבת at the ליום השבת

Prague, 1592, entry for the year ,צמח דוד ,See David Gans .27 5352 (= 1592). In M. Breuer’s edition (Jerusalem, 1983), the passage appears on pp. 145-6.

28. It is noteworthy that in 1615, Zalman Zvi Aufhausen, a Jew residing in Germany, published a defense of Judaism against a vicious attack by the apostate Samuel Brenz. In the introduction to his defense, Aufhausen writes that he was encouraged by the great Jewish scholars in Prague and Germany to undertake his defense of Judaism. In the list of accusations, Brenz accused the Jews of engaging in magical rites and creating golems out of clay. Aufhausen admitted that Jews created golems out of clay in the talmudic period (see b. Sanhedrin 65b), but only by means of Sefer Yetzirah and the Divine Name, and not by engaging in magical rites. After the talmudic period, according to Aufhausen, Jews no longer had the ability to create golems out of clay, especially in the German lands. Aufhausen concludes: אביר אונזרי גולמיים אין דיזן לאנדן מכין מיר ניט אויש ליימן זונדר אויש מוטר לייב ווערין זיא גיבורן. In these lands, however, our Golems are not made from clay, but rather they are born from the bodies of their mothers. ,[second edition] יודישר טירייאק ,See Zalman Zvi Aufhausen Altdorf, 1680, pp. 7a-b. Given the apologetic nature of Aufhausen’s defense, it is difficult to assess how much stock should be put in his claim. But, surely, if the Maharal’s Golem had been strolling the streets of Prague a decade or two earlier than the appearance of the first edition of Aufhausen’s work, he could hardly claim openly that Jews no longer had the ability the create Golems out of clay after the Talmudic period.

29. See L. Loewenstein, Nathaniel Weil Oberlandrabbiner in Karlsruhe und seine Familie, Frankfurt, 1898, pp. 23-85.

30. See the entry on him in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 10, cols. 758-759. In the 17th and 18th centuries, a ,ספר הפליאה it was widely believed that he was the author of kabbalistic work that describes the creation of a Golem. Prof. Moshe Idel (in a private communication) suggests that this may have led to the belief that R. Avigdor Kara of Prague created a Golem. In any event, the fact that a distinguished Talmudist in 18th century Prague was persuaded that R. Avigdor Kara had created a Golem, suggests the possibility of a transfer in Prague of the Golem legend from R. Avigdor Kara (who by the end of the 18th century was relatively unknown) to the Maharal (who by the end of the 18th century resurfaced as a major Jewish figure whose works were being reprinted for the first time in almost 250 years). For other suggestions regarding the linkage between the Maharal and the Golem, see V. Sadek, “Stories of the Golem and their Relation to the Work of Rabbi Loew of Prague,” Judaica Bohemiae 23(1987), pp. 85-91; H. J. Kieval, “Pursuing the Golem of Prague: Jewish Culture and the Invention of a Tradition,” Modern Judaism 17(1997), pp. 1-23; Kieval’s updated version in his Languages of Community: The Jewish Experience in the Czech Lands, Berkeley, 2000, pp. 95-113; B. L. Sherwin, “The Golem of Prague and his Ancestors,” in A. Putik, ed., Path of Life: Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, Prague, 2009, pp. 273-291; and J. Davis, “The Legend of Maharal before the Golem,”Judaica Bohemiae 45(2009), pp. 41-59.

31. On R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm, see J. Guenzig, Die Wundermaenner in juedischen Volke, Antwerpen, 1921, pp. 24-26; G. Scholem, “The Idea of the Golem,” in his On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, New York, 1969, pp. 199-204; M. Idel, “R. Eliyahu, the Master of the Name, in Helm,” in hisGolem , .Tel Aviv, 1996, pp ,גולם ,Albany, 1990, pp. 207-212; and idem 181-184.

.Jerusalem, 1988, p ,לבושי בדים ,R. Yedidiah Tiah Weil .32 37. The passage comes from a sermon delivered in 1780.

Yet another 18th century witness, R. Saul Berlin (d. 1794), כתב was apparently ignorant of the Maharal’s Golem. In his ,written in 1784 but published posthumously in Berlin) יושר 1794), p. 3b, Berlin writes: ואולי דבר סרה על הנסים הידועים לכל בני הגולה, כאותם שעשה מוהר"ר לוי [קרי: ליוא] בהזמינו את הקיסר רודאלפוס למשתה, וע"י שם הוריד בירה מן השמים, או בגולם שעשה מוהר"ר נפתלי זצ"ל אשר עפרו עודנו טמון וגנוז.

Did [Wessely] speak disparagingly about the miracles known throughout the Jewish Diaspora? [Did he speak disparagingly] about those miracles performed by Rabbi Liva when he invited Emperor Rudolph to his party, and when by means of a Divine name he caused the Prague Castle to descend from heaven? Or regarding the Golem created by Rabbi Naftoli of blessed memory, whose dust still remains stored away?

Clearly, R. Saul Berlin knew legends about the Maharal. But when he needed to adduce a sample of the Golem legend, he had to turn elsewhere! Interestingly, the legend about the Prague Castle descending from heaven onto the Jewish quarter of Prague was first told about R. Adam Baal Shem, and not about the Maharal. It first appeared in print in Prague in the 17th century. By the 19th century, the very same story was told in Prague circles with the Maharal as its hero. Once again (see above, note 30) it would appear that we have a sample of the transfer in Prague of a legend from one hero to another, with the Maharal as the recipient. In general, see C. Shmeruk, .Jerusalem, 1981, pp. 119-139 ,ספרות יידש בפולין Even more interesting is the reference to the Golem of R. Naftoli, otherwise unrecorded in Jewish literature. The reference is almost certainly to R. Naftoli Ha-Kohen Katz (1645-1719), distinguished halakhist and master of the practical kabbalah, whose amulets – apparently — didn’t always work. From 1690 to 1704 he served as Chief Rabbi of Posen. (Note too that the Maharal served as a Chief Rabbi of Posen!) Recorded in Jewish literature (though I have never seen it cited in any discussion of the Golem of Prague) is an oral tradition from 1835 that the Maharal’s Golem was created in Posen and that the remains of the Golem could still be seen in the 19th century in the old synagogue of Posen “under the eaves, lifeless, and inactive like a piece of clay.” See S. M. Gollancz, Biographical Sketches and Selected Verses, London, 1930, pp. v and 50-55, and especially p. 54. It is at least possible that R. Saul Berlin heard about the legend of the Golem of Posen and assumed (wrongly) that the Golem was created by the famed practical kabbalist and rabbi of Posen, R. Naftoli.

I am indebted to S. of the On the Main Line Blogspot (see כתב יושר above, note 3) for calling my attention to the passage.

Apparently, reports about the remains of Golems in attics were a rather widespread phenomenon in the early modern period. Aside from the reports about Prague and Posen, see the report about the Great Synagogue in Vilna (where the Vilna Gaon’s Golem rested in peace) in H.L. Gordon, The Maggid of Caro, New York, 1949, p. 176. A similar report about a Golem in Beshtian ,דרכי החיים ,circles is recorded in R. Yosef of Tcherin Piotrkow, 1884, Introduction, pp. 14-15.

.appended to R , מגילת יוחסין ,(R. Meir Perels (d. 1739 .33 Zolkiev, 1745. It was reissued separately ,מטה משה ,Moshe Katz חדושי ,.in Warsaw, 1864, and is available in L. Honig, ed ’London, 1962, vol. 1, pp. 17-32. Perels ,אגדות מהר"ל מפראג is riddled with inaccuracies and needs to be used מגילת יוחסין with caution. See A. Putik and D. Polakovic, “Judah Loew ben Bezalel, called Maharal: A Study of His Genealogy and Biography,” in A. Putik, ed., Path of Life: Rabbi Judah ben Bezalel, Prague, 2009, pp. 29-83. Putik and Polakovic cite significant earlier studies by Y. Yudlov, D.N. Rotner, S. Sprecher, and others. See also N.A. Vekstein ‘s important in ”,המהר"ל מפראג“ entitled ,מגילת יוחסין ’analysis of Perels .September 4, 2009 ,המודיע

In the light of the discussion in notes 30-33 — and until new evidence is forthcoming — it seems evident that the linkage between the Maharal and the Golem originated after 1780 and before 1835, almost certainly in Prague but perhaps in Posen.

34. See A. Putik, ed., Path of Life, pp. 398-399.