Which Direction is North?, Geographical Mistakes, and our Woke Universities

Which Direction is North?, Geographical Mistakes, and our Woke Universities Marc B. Shapiro

1. Numbers 34:15 states: “Two and a half tribes have taken their inheritance on the side of the Jordan by Jericho, to the front, eastward.”

Rashi comments:

קדמה מזרחה: אל פני העולם שהם במזרח, שרוח מזרחית קרויה פנים ומערביות קרויה אחור לפיכך דרום לימין וצפון לשמאל

This passage is translated as follows in ArtScroll’s Sapirstein edition:

To the Front, Eastward: This means to the front of the world, which is in the east, for the eastern direction is called “face” and the western direction is called “back.” This is why the south is to the right and the north is to the left.

What does the “front of the world” mean? Furthermore, how could Rashi say that south is to the right? Anyone who looks at a map can see that south is not to the right and north is not to the left. Rather east is to the right and west is to the left.

ArtScroll begins its explanation by referring to Psalms צָפוֹן וְיָמִין אַתָּה בְרָאתָם :89:13

“The north and the south [right], Thou hast created them.” What we see from this verse is that “right” is used synonymously with “south”, which means that “north” also signifies “left”. But what does this mean, that “south” is “right” and “north” is “left”?

אִם–הַשְּׂמֹאל וְאֵימִנָה:See also Genesis 13:9 וְאִם–הַיָּמִין וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה

אם את לצפונא אנא לדרומא:Onkelos and Ps.-Jonathan translate ואם את לדרומא אנא לצפונה

As you can see, the Targumim also understand “right” to mean south and “left” to mean north.

וַיִּרְדְּפֵם עַד–חוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר:Genesis 14:15 states מִשְּׂמֹאל לְדַמָּשֶׂק

Old JPS translates: “[He] pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.” But this is incorrect. The here means “to the north”, and this is how it משמאל word appears in the new JPS (and also in ArtScroll). See also Ezekiel 16:46 where again the words “right” and “left” refer to south and north.[1]

In its commentary to Rashi, Numbers 34:15, ArtScroll provides examples of other places where Rashi explains “south” to mean וְהַכְּרֻבִים:right”. For example, Ezekiel 10:3 states“ Now the cherubim“ .עֹמְדִים מִימִין לַבַּיִת בְּבֹאוֹ הָאִישׁ stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in.” Rashi comments:

מימין לבית: בדרום

“On the right side of the house: In the south [of the Temple].”

ArtScroll does not mention Rashi, Genesis 35:18, where he ,as meaning “of the south”, that is בנימין explains the name the only son who was born in the south.

Returning to Rashi’s comment in Numbers 34:15, where he says that south is to the right and north is to the left, ArtScroll explains as follows: “When one faces east, his right is to the south, his left is to the north, and his back is to the west.” This explanation is earlier found in the Silbermann translation of Rashi, Exodus, p. 261: “In reality these terms describe the points of the compass relative to one who is ,the right ,ימין so that ( )מזרח facing the place of sun-rise the left, is the North.” Neither , שמאלis the South and ArtScroll nor Silbermann mention that this explanation is already found in Nahmanides, Exodus 26:18.

Now let us look at two passages in Maimonides. InMishneh Torah, Hilkhot Terumot 1:9, Maimonides states:

איזו היא סוריה? מארץ ישראל ולמטה כנגד ארם נהריים וארם צובה כל יד פרת עד בבל כגון דמשק ואחלב וחרן ומגבת וכיוצא בהן עד שנער וצהר הרי היא כסוריה

What constitutes Syria? From Eretz Yisrael and below parallel to Aram Naharaim and Aram Tzovah, the entire region of the Euphrates until Babylonia, e.g., Damascus, Achalev, Charan, Minbag, and the like until Shinar and Tzahar. These are considered like Syria.

I have underlined the problematic word. How can Maimonides say that Aram Naharaim etc. are below the Land of Israel? As R. Mordechai Emanuel notes, the Rambam is placing Damascus south of the Land of Israel which is clearly mistaken.[2] Here is the map, and if we inserted all the places places Maimonides mentions we would find them north of Israel. R. Isaac Klein writes as follows in his translation in the Yale Judaica Series (p. 436):

“Outward” – literally “below.” The term is due to the belief that the Land of Israel was situated higher than all other lands, hence all other countries were considered below it. In modern Hebrew he who immigrates into Israel is termed oleh, “he who has ascended,” while he who leaves Israel is called yored, “he who has descended.”

The Touger edition of the Mishneh Torah comments:

The term “below” in this context is problematic. It does not mean “south,” because significant portions of Syria are more northerly than Eretz Yisrael. Some commentaries understand it as meaning in height, because as Kiddushin 69b states, Eretz Yisrael is higher than other lands.

Rambam le-Am states that the word “below” should be understood as meaning “outside of”, which is how Klein also translated the passage:

כלומר, מחוצה לה, וכתב “למטה” לפי שארץ ישראל גבוהה מכל הארצות – קידושין סט:

Yet this doesn’t make much sense. Maimonides is giving the cannot possibly מארץ ישראל ולמטהborders of Syria so saying mean “outside Eretz Yisrael”. The fact that Eretz Yisrael is higher than the surrounding lands is also not relevant. In other words, the three editions of the Mishneh Torah we have just mentioned don’t have a clue as to why Maimonides when anyone looking at a map would conclude that ,למטה writes .למעלה he should have written

The same problem can be seen inHilkhot Kiddush ha- Hodesh 11:17 where Maimonides states that Jerusalem is found below the equator.

מתחת הקו השוה המסבב באמצע העולם

Both Solomon Gandz in the Yale Judaica Series and the Touger edition translate this as “north of the equator” without can mean north. Again, anyone can look at מתחת explaining how a map and see that Jerusalem is above the equator, so what is going on here?

The answer to the questions I have asked is that maps in the Islamic world were generally oriented with south at the top. I Aתcan do no better than cite Jerry Brotton’s wonderful book History of the World in Twelve Maps (London, 2012), pp. 58-59:

Most of the communities who converted to Islam in its early phase of rapid international expansion in the seventh and eighth centuries lived directly north of Mecca, leading them to regard the qibla as due south. As a result, most Muslim world maps, including al-Idrisi’s, were oriented with south at the top. This also neatly established continuity with the tradition of the recently conquered Zoroastrian communities in Persia, which regarded south as sacred.

This orientation would have appeared on the maps that Maimonides was familiar with, and thus it makes sense for him to describe Aram Naharaim, etc. as below Israel, or Jerusalem as below the equator, as that is what he saw when he looked at a map.[3] Here is an example of such a map by the famed twelfth-century cartographer Muhammad al-Idrisi. This map is known as Tabula Rogeriana as it was made for King Roger II of Sicily.[4]

As you can see, Saudi Arabia is on top. Here is a twentieth- century map which also puts south on the top.[5] We have other examples of maps in Jewish sources that show the directions differently than what we are used to. For example, here is Gittin 7b and the maps in Rashi show west on top.

We also have maps in medieval manuscripts of Rashi’s commentaries that show east on top, as well as north on top.[6]

Here is Maharsha, Gittin 7b, which shows west on top. Below this you can see the map in R. Meir of Lublin’s commentary that has east on top.

Here is Maharsha, Berakhot 61b, and east is on top. Here is a page from R. Jonathan ben Joseph’sYeshuah be- Yisrael, a 1720 commentary on Maimonides’ Hilkhot Kiddush ha- Hodesh (ch. 10), and you can see again that east is on top. Many people probably assume that what we have seen are printers’ mistakes, but that is not the case. European cartographers regularly put east on top, as Jerusalem was in the east relative to Europe, and the top was often regarded as the most important place on a map.[7] We also have examples from Europe with the west on top, although this is much rarer.[8] The important point is that our current maps that have north on top are not any more correct than these other maps. It is simply a matter of convention which direction should be on top, and interested readers are referred to Brotton’s book mentioned already.

As we have been discussing maps, here are some examples of what appear to be geographical mistakes in rabbinic literature, in no particular order. (In a future post I will deal with rabbinic views about whether the earth is round or flat, and why they thought there was no human habitation in the southern hemisphere.)

,עד נהר .and Kiddushin 71b s.v ,סהדא Rashi, Shabbat 65b, s.v states that the Euphrates flows from the Land of Israel to Babylonia.[9] The Talmud, Shabbat 65b, quotes Rav that when the water rises in the Euphrates this is a sign that there has been rain in the Holy Land.[10] I believe the simple explanation of this passage, contrary to Rashi, is that there was an assumption that if there was significant rain in Babylonia then there was also rain in Eretz Yisrael. Presumably, this is also the meaning of pseudo-Rashi :(this commentary is not by Rashi) סהדא .to Nedarim 40a s.v

כשנהר פרת גדול הוי עדות לגשמים שיורדין לא“י דאי“ גבוה מכל הארצות ובאין גשמים ונופלין בפרת ומתגדל מהן

Rashi, however, had a different approach, and believed that the Euphrates flows all the way from the Land of Israel to Babylonia, so when the level of the Euphrates is raised this is proof that in the Land Israel it rained. Yet this is incorrect as the Euphrates does not flow from the Land of ,סהדא .Israel to Babylonia. See also Tosafot, Shabbat 65b s.v who also think that the Euphrates is found in the Land of Israel, but reject Rashi’s understanding since Tosafot claims that rivers only flow from east to west (so the Euphrates must flow from Babylonia to the Land of Israel).[11]

However, R. Samuel Strashun, note to Shabbat 65b, tells us that he looked at a map and saw that the Euphrates indeed flows from west to east. He further notes that the Danube River also flows from west to east, meaning that Tosafot’s reason for rejecting Rashi is incorrect. We know that the Tosafot on different tractates do not necessarily come from ,and 55b ,לא .the same school, and Tosafot, Bekhorot 44a, s. v mention Rashi’s idea that the Euphrates flows from ,מיטרא .s.v the Land of Israel to Babylonia.

Returning to Rashi, many have wondered how Rashi could describe the Euphrates as flowing from the Land of Israel, although I don’t see what is so difficult, since without accurate maps how could one expect Rashi to have perfect knowledge of the geography of the Middle East?[12] Nahmanides famously records in his commentary to Genesis 35:16 that only when he came to the Land of Israel and could see the geography did he realize that an explanation he had offered was incorrect. Interestingly, Nahmanides never updated his commentary to Genesis 35:18 where he criticizes Rashi for his supposed geographic error regarding Aram Naharaim. Yet most would say that it is Ramban who is mistaken when he writes that “Aram is southeast of the Land of Israel, and the Land of Israel is to its north.”[13]

R. Strashun calls attention to what he thinks is another geographical mistake in Rashi. In his note to Sukkah 36a he about where (היפך המציאות) mentions that Rashi is mistaken Kush is located, as R. Strashun tells us that Kush is Ethiopia. However, as R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer has noted, Rashi not , הינדואהroutinely explains Kush as being identical with ,as India הינדואהEthiopia. Presumably, Rashi understands which means that Hodu, mentioned in Esther 1:1, is a different place. While most people have understood Esther 1:1 to mean “from India[14] unto Ethiopia,” Rashi on Esther 1:1 tells us that Kush and Hodu are next to each other (which is one talmudic opinion in Megillah 11a). the , הינדואהLeaving aside Rashi’s identification of Kush as of as aהינדואה real problem is Rashi’s understanding different place than Hodu. Interested readers can examine my earlier post here where I discuss this issue and explain has a dagesh in the dalet.[15] As for Kush, there is הדו why no uniformity of opinion as to what it refers to, and it is possible that the different biblical references do not all refer to the same place.[16] In agreement with Rashi, mention that the Midrash ,בצפרא .Tosafot, Bava Batra 84a s.v places Kush in the east. R. Jacob Emden, who knew his geography, states that in addition to Ethiopia there was another land near India that was called Kush.[17] No less a figure than R. Abraham Maimonides confesses that he does not know where the Kush mentioned in Genesis 2:13 is to be found.[18]

There is actually a long mountain range called Hindu Kush that passes through Pakistan, which until the second half of the twentieth century was included in the territory called India.[19] Since the term “Hindu Kush” has been in existence for over a thousand years, it was obviously not incorrect for medieval writers to speak of a Kush near India. In my earlier post I also cited P. S. Alexander who writes: “It was a common view in ancient geography, shared by Ptolemy and probably also the author of the book of Jubilees . . . that Ethiopia was joined to India in the east. It is this idea that lies behind the [talmudic] statement that Cush and Hodu are adjacent.”[20] He also notes that the Indians’ dark skin was a reason for the identification. Furthermore, Alexander tell us, there was an ancient belief that there was a land connection between Ethiopia and India south of the Indian Ocean.

Speaking of geographical inaccuracies, Rabbi Natan Slifkin writes as follows in his new book Rationalism vs. Mysticism, p. 517:

The Zohar makes many statements about places in the Land of Israel which are incorrect, but which would be perfectly understandable if they were authored by someone living in Spain. For example, in multiple places the Kinneret is described as being in the territory of Zevulun, and as being the source of the chilazon that produces techelet, even though it was actually derived from the Mediterranean. Lod is described as being situated in the Galilee, and Cappadocia is described as a village near Sepphoris rather than as a province in Asia Minor.[21]

Avraham Korman called attention to a passage in Yalkut Shimoni, Joshua, remez 15.[22] The Midrash is commenting on the verse in Joshua 3:16:

וַיַּעַמְדוּ הַמַּיִם הַיֹּרְדִים מִלְמַעְלָה קָמוּ נֵד–אֶחָד, הַרְחֵק מְאֹד באדם (מֵאָדָם) הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר מִצַּד צָרְתָן

The waters which came down from above stood, and rose up in one heap, a great way off from Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan

The Midrash states:

שמעת מימיך עיר נקראת אדם? אלא על אברהם נאמר “והאדם הגדול בעקים” (יהושע יד, טו)

Korman believes this Midrash was authored by someone who did not know the Land of Israel, and thus could not believe that there was actually a city named Adam. Therefore, the sage offered a midrashic understanding of “Adam”. Yet there was indeed such a city, and it is mentioned in Yerushalmi, Sotah 7:5. It was later called Damiyeh by the Arabs.[23] However, Korman’s notion that the author of the Midrash did not know any of this, and the passage should be read as a denial of the literal existence of the city of Adam, strikes me as complete nonsense.

R. Ovadiah Bartenura in his commentary to Genesis 12:6 strangely does not realize that Hebron is in the south of biblical Eretz Yisrael.[24] R. Ovadiah would eventually journey to the Land of Israel, so this comment must have been made before his arrival there.

R. Moses Sofer, She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Even ha- Ezer II no. 49, cites Deuteronomy 11:24, which refers to the boundaries of “Greater Israel.”

כָּל–הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּדְרֹךְ כַּף–רַגְלְכֶם בּוֹ לָכֶם יִהְיֶה מִן–הַמִּדְבָּר וְהַלְּבָנוֹן מִן–הַנָּהָר נְהַר–פְּרָת, וְעַד הַיָּם הָאַחֲרוֹן יִהְיֶה, גְּבֻלְכֶם

“Every place whereon the sole of your foot shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness, and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the Western Sea shall be your border.” as these ,מן המדבר והלבנוןR. Sofer wonders about the words are both in the south, so how could this establish borders when what the verse should have is a site in the north together with a site in the south?

ויש לי מקום עיון בלשון הקרא . . . שלכאורה אין לו שחר כי המדבר והלבנון הוא גבול דרומית לא“י שבין צפון ים סוף לדרום א“י

This passage is surprising, to say the least, as how could R. Sofer say that Lebanon is in the south of Israel? Ever since this passage appeared in print it has mystified readers and many have simply thrown up their hands without any explanation, as it is impossible to imagine that R. Sofer did not know that Lebanon is located to the north of Israel. R. Sofer was attacked on this point by Leopold Loew in his Hungarian periodical Ben Chananja.[25] R. Joseph Natonek in a German booklet offered an explanation of R. Sofer, but I confess to not understanding his point. Here is how R. Natonek’s position is summarized by Shmuel Weingarten.[26]

הרב נטונק מוכיח איפוא שה“אתנחתא” בדברי החת“ס צריכה להיות אחרי המלים שבין“ ”והווצפון של והלבנון אינה ו‘ החבור (konjunktiv) אלא ו‘ הפרוד (disjunktiv) . . . דברי החתס“ ברורים איפוא: כי“ המדבר והלבנון הוא גבול דרומית לא“י שבין צפון” מן המדבר שבדרום עד הלבנון שבצפון וכו‘

R. Sofer made his comment regarding Deuteronomy 11:24, and he as indicating that theמן המדבר והלבנוןsees the words wilderness and Lebanon are in the same place. The same words are found in Joshua 1:4:

מהמדבר והלבנון הזה ועד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת

“From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates.”

Here, too, if we didn’t already know where Lebanon is we would assume that the wilderness and Lebanon are together, as that is the simplest way to read the text. It is so obvious, in fact, that Metzudat Tziyon is forced to explain “Lebanon” as referring to the name of a forest. The Vilna Gaon, in his commentary printed in the Mikraot Gedolot, also does not regard this “Lebanon” as referring to the Lebanon we know but a different Lebanon in the southeast of Israel.[27] So we see that R. Sofer was not alone in his understanding.

Avraham Moshe Luntz, who wrote much about the geography of the Land of Israel, also argues that the “Lebanon” referred to here is not the Lebanon we know.[28] He thinks the verse is referring to the borders of a future Greater Israel and the Lebanon mentioned is actually Wadi al-Abyad in the south, in the Land of Edom. (Abyad=white, which is also the root of the word Lebanon.) However, I don’t know which place he is referring to, as while there is a Wadi al-Abyad in Jordan it is not in the south but on the east of Jerusalem. Here is how Luntz connects what he says with the Vilna Gaon’s comment (p. 83):

והנה כל הדברים האלה אף כי חדשים הם לא שערום הראשונים בכל זאת הרגיש בהם הגר“א ז“ל מטעם סוד ה‘ ליראיו אם כי לא שמע מעולם מן ועד–אל–אביאט ורק מרוח הקודש אשר הופיע בבית מדרשו כתב בבאורו על הגבולין דיהושע והלבנון זה מזרחו של ארץ ישראל הקרוב לצד דרום ולכן אמר “הזה” ששם היו עומדים והרב בעל תבואות הארץ כתב עליו “נפלאים בעיני דבריו“. אמנם, לא נפלאים ולא רחוקים המה, רק נפלאת היא בעניניו רוח קדשו של הגר“א ז“ל אשר מאת ה‘ נתנה לו.

In Mesorat Moshe, vol. 2, pp. 158-159, R. Moshe Feinstein discusses Venice and Shushan Purim.[29] In the note the following appears:

ואחר כך הזכיר רבינו שונציה שנזכר בפיוטים הוא חלק מרוסיה, פעם היה שם רב אליהו פרושנער, אבל אפשר שונציה שמוזכר בשער דף של ספרים, למקום הדפוס, מכוין ל-Venice [ונציה], שמוצאים זה על ספרים עתיקות, בשנים שברוסיה וכו‘ לא היו בתי דפוס, ואפשר שבאיטליה כן היה.

R. Moshe says that the Venice that is mentioned in piyutim is not Venice, Italy, but a place in Russia. He must have had in which you can read – –וויניצא mind the town of Vinnitsa about here. He also says that R. Elijah Feinstein (of Pruzhan) was there, which appears to mean that he served as a rabbi in Vinnitsa (although this appears to be inaccurate). As for the first point about Venice being mentioned in piyutim, I have never heard of this and if it is the case, it could only refer to Venice, Italy. Perhaps R. Moshe was referring to something like this book of Yotzrot which on the title page says it was published in Venice, and refers to Venice, Italy. The note in Mesorat Moshe continues that R. Moshe was aware of the name Venice on the title page of seforim, and thought it is “possible” that this refers to Venice, Italy. This is all very strange, and despite what the note says I find it impossible to believe that R. Moshe did not know that Venice was a center for Jewish printing, even if he did not know the extent of this printing. (Venice was where the first Mikraot Gedolot[30] Bible, as well as the first complete Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds were printed.) I am inclined to assume that this note does not accurately inform us of what R. Moshe’s point was.

Regarding Venice, Rashi has an interesting passage in his commentary to Isaiah 42:10:

ומלואו: הקבועים בים ולא באיים אלא בתוך המים שופכים עפר כל אחד ואחד כדי בית והולכים מבית לבית בספינה כגון עיר ווניציי“א

[Those who go down to the sea and] those therein: Those whose permanent residence is in the sea and not in the islands, but in the midst of the water they spill earth, each one of them, enough for a house, and go from house to house by boat, like the city of Venice.

Rashi mistakenly thought that the islands of Venice–of which there are 118—were man-made. He also seems to have thought that there was only one house on each island and you travel from house to house by boat. Incidentally, as Yitzhak Baer has noted, other than Venice the only other contemporary (European) city Rashi mentions by name is Rome.[31] For the reference to Rome, Baer refers to Rashi’s commentary to Isaiah 33:23, but he neglects to note that Rashi also mentions Rome in his commentary to Micah 7:8. Furthermore, in Bomberg’s 1525 את מלך:Venice Mikraot Gedolot, Rashi to Zechariah 13:7 reads Yet in the standard Mikraot Gedolot the following .רומי הרשעה .את מלך בבל :appears

Manfred Lehmann[32] thought that there was something else related to Venice in Rashi’s commentary to Nehemiah 7:3 where in manuscripts, but not in the Mikraot Gedolot printed גיט“א :watches) as) משמרותversion, Rashi explains the word Lehmann states that this is the first time the word .בלעז “Ghetto” appears in Jewish literature, and that the word originates in Venice. Lehmann then states that he doubts that there was already a ghetto in Venice in the days of Rashi. I don’t understand this at all, because if Lehmann (correctly) doubts that there was a ghetto in medieval Venice, then how cannot refer to גיט“אcould he not realize that the word “ghetto”. (The Venice ghetto was established in 1516.) This is quite apart from the fact that the word “ghetto” would not ,means גיט“א make sense in the verse. If you want to know what the place to look is Moshe Katan,Otzar Loazei Rashi (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 88, where he provides the Hebrew I must .תצפיות, מארבים:translation of the old French word also note that the commentary to Nehemiah attributed to Rashi was not actually written by him.[33]

In the first draft of this post I wrote that I didn’t understand how R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai,Shem ha- .no. 2, could write that R ע .Gedolim, ma’arekhet gedolim, s.v Ovadiah of Bertinoro came from a town in “Romania.” R. Azulai refers to Romania in Shem ha-Gedolim, ma’arekhet gedolim, s.v. no. 15, and it ח .no. 169, andma’arekhet seforim, s.v א means Byzantium. I didn’t think it was possible that R. Azulai was unaware that Bertinoro is a town in Italy, some 200 miles from his home in Livorno. Furthermore, I have no doubt that every Torah scholar who lived in Italy in R. Azulai’s day would have known and been proud of the fact that R. Ovadiah came from Italy. So I didn’t know what to make of R. Azulai’s comment. Shimon Steinmetz enlightened me that when R. Azulai refers to Bertinoro as being in Romania, he actually has in mind the Italian historical region called Romagna. In an era before there was a country named Italy, it makes sense that R. Azulai would refer to the region that R. Ovadiah of Bertinoro came from. Let me offer one final example where the mistake is not made by the medieval authority, in this case Maimonides, but by his critic, R. Jacob Emden. In theMishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tzitzit 2:2, Maimonides writes about how tekhelet is produced: “A chilazon is a fish whose color is like the color of the sea the יםand whose blood is black like ink. It is found in means the Dead Sea, and the ים המלחWe all know that ”.המלח Dead Sea is referred to as such numerous times in the Bible. R. Jacob Emden is shocked that Maimonides makes the error of thinking that fish could live in the Dead Sea.[34] He ends his .לכן שיבוש גמור הוא זה לר“מ ז“ל :comment with the strong words A number of later commentators also call attention to Maimonides’ “problematic” words, and some refer to R. Emden’s comment.

Yet the mistake here is not by Maimonides but by R. Emden, who didn’t realize that when Maimonides referred to the “salt sea” he meant the Mediterranean.[35] Maimonides was just translating into Hebrew the Arabic term used to designate the At the end of his Commentary .אלבחר אלמאלח :[Mediterranean[36 on the Mishnah, Maimonides mentions that he wrote this work and in his commentary to Kelim 15:1 he ,אלבחר אלמאלח while on speaks of ships that that go from the Land of Israel to ,In theMishneh Torah .אלבחר אלמאלחAlexandria by way of ישליכן:Hilkhot Arakhim ve-Haramim 8:8, the best texts have thus explicitly identifying what ,לים הגדול ים המלח כדי לאבדן he means by “salt sea”. When Maimonides refers to the Dead Sea יםin Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shabbat 21:29, he calls it This is not his own term asBava Batra 74b refers .[סדום [37 Yerushalmi, Shabbat 14:3 refers to the Dead .ימה של סדום to Interestingly, Yerushalmi, Kil’ayim 9:3 refers .מי סדום Sea as .[ימא דמילחא [to it as 38

2. In a number of posts I have documented how material from an archive at Bar-Ilan University ended up in various auctions. I was quite surprised that no one in any position of authority at Bar-Ilan seemed to care at all about what I had discovered. R. Elli Fischer recently discovered something similar, but with a much more expensive manuscript from the Jewish Theological Seminary. The story in this case is that the manuscript was sold by JTS. See the report here. Maybe the story with the archive from Bar-Ilan is similar to what happened with JTS, and it was actually Bar-Ilan which sold the archive. This would explain why they expressed no interest in finding out how the archive ended up at auction.

* * * * * * * *

Some years ago Rabbi Jonathan Sacks told me that in addition to writing scholarship I should also write for the larger world. He specifically mentioned that I should write for the Wall Street Journal. I finally took up his suggestion a few months ago and submitted an opinion piece to the Journal. They get hundreds of submissions a day, so I was not very surprised when they turned it down. Maybe the message in this is that I should stick to what I do best instead of involving myself in the culture wars. Rather than having the piece go to waste, I present it to you here.

Is it all Bad News at Our Universities?

For many people, the campus seems like a scary place these days. One can read about social justice warriors running roughshod over anyone who crosses the latest woke standards. Professors have been raked over the coals, and worse, for even mildly crossing the new woke thought police. We have also been treated to the spectacle of professors confessing their sins and promising to do better in the future, in scenes that look like they came out of Chinese Cultural Revolution re-education camps.

While I don’t wish to downplay any of this, and there have indeed been shocking violations of free speech at some of the top universities, I think that many Americans are getting a warped sense of what takes place at the typical university. I am sometimes asked by people if my university is anything like what they have been reading about, to which I can happily reply that no, I have never had the misfortune to experience that. To begin with, the various excesses are almost always centered in a few departments in the humanities. As one who teaches in a Theology/Religious Studies Department at a Catholic university—which, it bears noting, had in-person classes this academic year unlike so many other institutions—it is hard to see how the woke mentality and cancel culture would play out. Are we to remove the Bible, Augustine, and Aquinas because passages in these works are not in line with twenty-first century woke values?

This clearly is a non-starter, but just as important is that there has never been a push for this from students, who often are the ones behind the most damaging of campus controversies. I daresay that my experience is no different than my colleagues at hundreds of other colleges and universities in the country, institutions that are not what is commonly called “elite” institutions of learning, but which do a wonderful job in educating a student body that reflects middle-class America. Yes, we have liberal and even progressive students, but what we don’t have in any numbers—or at least I have not come across them—are students who speak woke and know all the Marxist lingo, who can go on and on about intersectionality, white supremacist capitalism, and America as the center of evil in the world, and who get outraged (or pretend to be outraged) at things that even a couple of years ago no one would have batted an eye at.

It is certainly possible that things will change in the future, and the wokeness and cancel culture currently infecting the “elite” universities, as well as so many other aspects of elite society, will filter down to the rest of the country including my university. If this happens, it might be a good time to think of retirement, as I wonder—to give an example from one of my courses—how I could teach about ethics under a woke regime. Could we actually have a unit on Affirmative Action where together with Ronald Dworkin’s spirited defense of racial preferences we also read those who see any discrimination on the basis of race, even if it is called “equity,” as deeply immoral? Could we do the unit on capital punishment where we examine whether our criminal justice system is “systemically racist,” instead of assuming that as a given? Could we focus on abortion, where we examine if women really do have a “right” to choose to terminate a pregnancy? Then there are the student presentations where all subjects are open for discussion, including such hot-button matters as immigration, war, sexual ethics, and transgender issues. Never once has a student tried to shut down the freewheeling class debate or complained that another’s point of view makes them feel “unsafe.” That is the way it should be, and I am confident that is how matters will remain in the vast majority of our colleges and universities. For those who are worried that higher education is leading us into the abyss, I can only say that from where I am standing, it is actually higher education that is succeeding where the “elite” universities have often failed.

* * * * * * * *

[1] Rashi, quoting Midrash Tanhuma, identifies Hobah with Dan. Yet as R. Meir Mazuz notes, it is hard to know what to make of this, as Hobah is described as north of Damascus which is not where the territory of Dan was. SeeBayit Ne’eman: Bereshit 14:15. [2] “Gevulot Eretz Yisrael (2),” Ha-Ma’yan 33 (Tevet 5753), p. 15. [3] This is noted by R. Yisrael Ariel,Otzar Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem, 2012), vol. 4, p. 13. I have checked numerous editions of the Mishneh Torah and the only one to explain this point is the Makbili edition, Terumot 1:9. Here is the relevant page which also includes a map found in manuscripts which also has south on top. [4] See here from where I took the map. [5] This map is found here. [6] See Portraying the Land: Hebrew Maps of the Land of Israel from Rashi to the Early 20th Century (Berlin, 2018), ch. 1, available here. [7] They also placed Jerusalem in the center of the known world. There is a commentary attributed to Maimonides on Tractate Rosh ha-Shanah. According to this commentary, the Land of Israel is to be regarded as on the western part of the world. Where then is Europe to be placed?

Here is “Maimonides” comment, Hiddushei ha-Rambam le-Talmud, ed. Zaks (Jerusalem, 1963), p. 79: צריך אתה לידע שארץ ישראל סמוכה למערבו של עולם הרבה מכל הארצות

[8] See here. See also here. How pre-modern people imagined the world, which was based on the maps they saw, has relevance to the question of where to place the halakhic dateline. See e.g., the important articles, complete with historical maps in color, by R. Dovid Yitzchoki and R. Efraim Buckwold in Tevunot 2 (2018), pp. 969-1095. In the Soncino . הני.See also Rashi,Shabbat 145b s.v [9] translation to Shabbat 65b the following note appears: “Obermeyer, p. 45 and n. 2 rejects this [Rashi’s opinion] on hydrographical grounds, and explains that in most cases the rains in northern Mesopotamia in the Taurus range, where the Euphrates has its source, are the precursors of rain in Palestine.” The book by Jacob Obermeyer referred to isDie Landschaft Babylonien im Zeitalter des Talmuds und des Gaonats: Geographie und Geschichte nach talmudischen, arabischen und andern Quellen (Frankfurt, 1929). [10] The term “Holy Land” with reference to the Land of Israel is actually not mentioned in the Bible, the Talmud, or the geonic writings. According to Hayyim Asher Berman, who has investigated the matter, the term in its Hebrew version first appears in the medieval period. Berman also notes that the hundreds of times. Berman ארעא קדישאZohar uses the term claims that it is actually due to the Zohar’s use of this term that the Hebrew version became so popular. See Ha-Ma’yan 61 (Tevet 5781), pp. 102-103. (Understandably, others will see this as another sign that the Zohar was written in the medieval period.) Berman’s investigation was spurred by R. Shaul Yisraeli’s rejection of the term “Holy Land,” which he saw as a Christian invention in opposition to the term “Land the ,ארץ הקודשof Israel.” R. Yisraeli noted that unlike is a Jewish expression and relates to the many אדמת קודש term mitzvot relevant to the Land of Israel. See R. Meir Schlesinger, “Hirhurim al Hibat ha-Aretz,” Ha-Ma’yan 60 (Tamuz 5780), p. 50. R. Yisraeli was obviously aware that the term“Holy Land” was often used by Jews for the last thousand years. However, I believe his intention was about the present, not the past. Today you can find Christians who speak of visiting the Holy Land and are careful to never actually mention the name “Israel.” This has to be seen for what it is, an anti-Zionist delegitimization of the existence of the State of Israel. .עד .See also Tosafot, Kiddushin 71b. s.v [11]

[12] See R. Jacob Emden’s note toArakhin 15a where he criticizes Tosafot for a geographical mistake that was also due to not having a reliable map:

ואמנם כל מ“ש תוס‘ כאן אינו נכון גם ציור הארצות והים הוא מתנגד למציאות

אין אחר המציאות : To this I would add R. Meir Mazuz’smelitzah אין :[The expression is based onBava Batra 152b [end) כלום (אחר קנין כלום

[13] See e.g., R. Elijah Mizrahi, Commentary to Genesis 32:2. In his super-commentary to Nahmanides, Gen. 38:18, R. Menahem Zvi Eisenstadt writes: הדברים קשים להולמם, שהרי צדקו דברי רש”י שא”י בדרום ארם היא, והדבר ידוע [14] The Soncino translation says as follows: “The Hebrew Hoddu is really ‘Indus,” and refers to the north- western portion of the Indian peninsula which was drained by the Indus. This territory was added to the Persian Empire by Darius.” [15] To the sources listed there, see also Tosafot Yom Tov, Yoma 3:7, who does not make the connection between הדו. of ד and the dagesh in the הינדואה in נ the 16]] See Avodah Berurah, Sukkah, vol. 2, p. 128. [17] See his note to Megillah 11a. [18] Perush ha-Torah le-Rabbenu Avraham ben ha-Rambam, ed. Moshe Maimon, vol. 1, p. 150. [19] See here. [20] “Toponomy of the Targumim,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oxford University, 1974), p. 134. [21] The issue of the Zohar’s knowledge of the Land of Israel has been discussed for a long time. Gershom Scholem, in his article on the Zohar in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, writes as follows: The Palestinian setting of the book is also fictional, and, in the main, has no basis in fact. The Zohar relies on geographical and topographical ideas about Palestine taken from older literature. Sometimes the author did not understand his sources, and created places which never existed, e.g., Kapotkeya, as the name of a village near Sepphoris, on the basis of a statement in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shev. 9:5), which he combined with another statement in the Tosefta, Yevamot 4. He produces a village in Galilee by the name of Kefar Tarshi, which he identifies with Mata Meḥasya, and tells in this connection of the rite of circumcision which is based on material quoted in geonic literature with regard to Mata Meḥasya in Babylonia. Occasionally a place-name is based on a corrupt text in a medieval manuscript of the Talmud, e.g., Migdal Ẓor at the beginning of Sava de-Mishpatim. In the matter of scene and characters there are very close links between the main body of the Zohar and the stratum of the Midrash ha-Ne’lam, which follows the same path of mentioning places which do not actually exist. In this section Simeon b. Yoḥai and his companions already constitute a most important community of mystics, but other groups are mentioned as well, and particularly later amoraim or scholars with fictitious names who do not reappear in the Zohar. In recent times, several attempts have been made to explain the geographical difficulties, and to give a non-literal interpretation of statements in the Talmud and the Midrashim in order to make them fit the Zohar, but they have not been convincing.

Scholem’s point about Kapotkeya is rejected by R. Reuven Margaliyot, Peninim u-Margaliyot (Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 212ff. [22] Ha-Adam ve-Tiv’o be-Mada u-ve-Yahadut (Tel Aviv, no date), p. 28. [23] See Encylopaedia Judaica , s.v. Adam. [24] See his commentary printed inBa’alei ha-Tosafot al Hamishah Humshei Torah (Warsaw, 1876), p. 10b. This example is noted by R. Avraham ha-Kohen, Kiryat Arba, p. 237. [25] See Shmuel Weingarten, Ha-Rav Yosef Natonek (Jerusalem, 1943), pp. 18ff. For another Haskalah attack on R. Sofer, see the anonymous author in Kerem Hemed 9 (1856), Letter 14. In a mocking fashion, the author deals with a number of matters, one of which is that in She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim, no. 16, R. Sofer states that R. Amram Gaon is buried in Mainz and he saw the grave. R. Sofer also mentions this in She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer ha-Hadashot (Jerusalem, 1989), no. 11. This cannot be correct, and one can only assume that R. Sofer was shown the grave of someone else named R. Amram and given the false information that this R. Amram was R. Amram Gaon. For a possible identification of the R. Amram whose grave R. Sofer saw, see R. Naftali Yaakov ha- Kohen, Otzar ha-Gedolim, vol. 7, p. 332, and the sources cited in R. Nosson David Rabinowich, Safra ve-Saifa (Jerusalem, 2013), pp. 280ff. [26] Ibid., p. 22 n. 17. [27] See here for the suggestion that the Vilna Gaon’s comment is a printer’s error and it really should say “north” instead of “south.” [28] Yerushalayim 7 (1907), pp. 81ff. It has recently been suggested that there are actually two separate biblical places named “Eilat”. See R. Yehudah Berakhah,Birkat Yehudah (Jerusalem, 2021), vol. 8, p. 417. [29] We refer to the day as Shushan Purim due to the influence of Yiddish. In Hebrew—and this is how Sephardic writers refer to the day—it is called Purim Shushan. R. Elijah Feinstein, who R. Moshe refers to, was actually the shadkhan of R. David Feinstein, R. Moshe’s father. See Iggerot Moshe, vol. 8, Introduction, p. 6. Contrary to what many people think, even though they shared a last name, R. Moshe Feinstein’s family was not related to R. Elijah Feinstein (R. Moshe was a yisrael and R. Elijah was a levi). R. Moshe’s mother was the one who was related to R. Elijah, as she was his sister-in-law. See ibid. is masculine so it should“ Mikraotbe מקרא The word [30] Gedolim”. “Mikraot Gedolot” is a mistake invented by printers which soon became an accepted form. See R. Yehudah Ben Lavi, Shevet mi-Yehudah, vol. 2, p. 226. [31] See Baer, “Rashi ve-ha-Metziut ha-Historit shel Zemano,” in Yehudah Leib Maimon, ed., Sefer Rashi (Jerusalem, 1956), p. 501. [32] “Iyunim be-Ferush Rashi al ha-Tanakh,” Sinai 107 (5751), p. 84. [33] See Mayer Gruber,Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms (Philadelphia, 2007), pp. 69ff. [34] Mitphahat Sefarim, ch. 4, p. 29 in the Jerusalem, 1995 edition. [35] See e.g., R. Baruch Epstein, Torah Temimah, Numbers ch. 15, n. 118, which, as noted by R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, is taken from an earlier writer’s comment. See Sofer inBeit Aharon ve-Yisrael 97 (2002), p. 131. [36] See R. Kafih’s commentary to Hilkhot Tzitzit 2:2. [37] See R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer in Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael 97 (2002), p. 131. [38] See R. Solomon Judah Rapoport, Ha-Magid, Nov. 26, 1873, p. 421. The word is pronounced kil’ayim and not kilayim, as People sometimes mispronounce it .ל there is a sheva under the This .כלאים of א as kilaim, as if there is ahirik under the reminds me of another common mistake. If you google you will find that many refer to the concept ofshomer “ pesaim (petaim).” Yet this is a mistake. The verse in Psalms The second word is .שֹׁמֵר פְּתָאיִם:reads 116:6 is silent. Another אpronounced pesayim (petayim), as the is silent and many people make a mistake א example where the Even people who have this name often .דניאל is with the name pronounce it in Hebrew as Doniel (or Doniellah for women). Yet This is . דָּנִיֵּאל:the name is properly pronounced Doniyel and the א where thetzere is under the אריאל unlike the name word is pronounced Ariel. R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin and Yeshiva Students being Drafted to the Army, views of women, and more

Shlomo Yosef Zevin and Yeshiva Students being Drafted to the Army, Views of Women, and More

Marc B. Shapiro

1. In an earlier post I wrote about R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin and the famous essay about how yeshiva students need to serve in the army, an essay which is widely attributed to him. See here. In the post I cited important information uncovered by David Eisen that complicates the issue (as we see the Zevin family itself is of two minds on the matter), and we were left with no absolute proof that R. Zevin wrote the essay. I encourage all readers interested in the topic to read the six emails from Eisen quoted in my post, as they became the primary source material for all who wish to explore this matter.

One of the points that Eisen’s sources disagree about is when the essay was attributed to R. Zevin. R. Nachum Zevin, R. Zevin’s grandson, claims that it was only attributed to him after R. Zevin’s passing in 1978, but R. Menachem Hacohen states that already in the early 1970s he had seen the essay and it was believed that R. Zevin wrote it. As Eisen reports, one of the chief librarians at the National Library told him that he believes that already in the 1960s the essay was attributed to R. Zevin. I am now able to put the matter to rest and establish beyond any doubt that R. Zevin is indeed the author of the essay. One of R. Zevin’s close friends was the author R. Zvi Harkavy, who served as an army chaplain. Harkavy regarded R. Zevin as his In 1959 it was announced .מו”ר teacher, referring to him as that Harkavy would publish a bibliography of all of R. Zevin’s writings, which were estimated to be over 1000 items, including material written under a pseudonym.[1] As far as I can tell, this never appeared. In Harkavy’s Ma’amrei Tzvi, p. 26, he includes a 1969 letter he received from R. Zevin is I mention all this .ידידי הדגול which Harkavy is addressed as only to show that when Harkavy speaks about R. Zevin you rely on what he says.

It has often been said that the identification of R. Zevin with the essay on yeshiva students and the army was only made years after its 1948 appearance, and this casts doubt on it having been being written by R. Zevin. I can now say that this is incorrect. In 1951 (Iyar 5711) Harkavy published an article in the Jerusalem Torah periodical Ha-Hed, which was a journal that R. Zevin himself often published in. (Unfortunately, very few issues from this periodical can be found on Otzar haChochma.) In Harkavy’s article he identifies R. Zevin as the author of the essay. Not only was Harkavy, because of his close friendship with R. Zevin, in a position to know that he wrote it, but R. Zevin never denied authorship in subsequent issues of Ha-Hed.

This shows without any doubt that R. Zevin is the author of the essay, and from this point on no one—including members of the family—should deny his authorship. Here is Harkavy’s article.

R. Nochum Shmaryohu Zajac called my attention to the recently published memorial volume for R. Yehoshua Mondshine,Sefer, Sofer, ve-Sipur. On p. 327 R. Mondshine wonders why R. Zevin—whom he seems to believe was indeed the author of the essay—would have felt it necessary to keep his authorship secret. R. David Zvi Hillman suggests that R. Zevin felt that if it was known that he wrote it, he would not have been welcome at the Brisker Rav’s home. He adds that it could have also created problems with the Habad synagogue he attended, as well as with his good friend R. Yehezkel Abramsky.

In going through the various issues of Ha-Hed, I discovered a picture of great interest in the Shevat 5711 issue.

On the right is Leah Seliger. She was a learned woman who edited the collected writings of her late husband, R. Joseph Seliger, Kitvei Ha-Rav Dr. Yosef Seliger (Jerusalem, 1930). The woman in the middle is R. Kook’s wife, Raize Rivka. Until recently I knew of only one other published picture of her, and this appears at the beginning of Pinchas Grayevski, Benot Tziyon vi-Yerushalayim, vol. 7 (Jerusalem, 1929; I think Dr. Yehudah Mirsky called my attention to this picture). The woman on the left is Miriam Berlin, the widow of R. Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin. I do not know of any other published pictures of her.

Shimon Steinmetz called my attention to this additional picture of R. Kook’s wife that can be foundhere . 2. In my post here I discussed these words from Exodus 15:16:

בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ יִדְּמוּ כָּאָבֶן

However, I neglected to mention one additional point. How come when according to the grammatical כ there is a dagesh in the rules it should not be there? R. Aaron of Lunel in his Orhot Hayyim offers an explanation. He states that if there was a dagesh people would read the last two words stones are similar to you,” which is not“ ,יִדְּמוּךׇ אָבֶן as a respectful thing to say to God.[2]

3. In my last post here I discussed the Hazon Ish’s opinion on the dispute between Maimonides and Rabad about an unwitting heretic, and the Hazon Ish’s assumption that Maimonides actually agreed with Rabad in this matter. It must be clarified that the Hazon Ish is not certain about his suggestion that there was no disagreement between Maimonides and Rabad when it came to someone who was completely “innocent” in his heresy. The Hazon Ish[3] begins his comment: ואפשר שהרמב”ם ז”ל מודה

4. A couple of years ago in my post here I mentioned that in part two of the post I would have an excursus on the nature of women. For some reason I forgot to include this excursus in all the subsequent posts, so here it is.[4]

On the matter of the creation of women, and whether they are created “better” or “worse” than men, Shaul Regev calls attention to a strange comment by R. Jacob Matalon,Toldot Yaakov (Salonika, 1597), p. 7d (printed together with his She’erit Yaakov).[5] There are many comments in rabbinic texts that have a negative view of women, and most of these comments are based on a belief that women are inherently inferior to men. Yet not many texts are as explicit as R. Matalon in regarding women as almost a different species, standing between apes and men.

ובין החי למדבר הקוף ובין הקוף םמדבר [צ”ל למדבר] ומשכיל הם הנשים והאנדרוגינוס must mean speak with מדבר Women obviously speak, so intelligence.

A passage similar to what R. Matalon says, but without mention of an ape, is found in Gersonides’ comment to Genesis ch. 3 (p. 110 in the Ma’aliyot edition).

והנה קראה האדם שם אשתו ‘חוה’, כאשר השיג בחולשת שכלה, רוצה לומר שלא עלתה מדרגתה על שאר הבעלי חיים עילוי רב, ואם היא בעלת שכל, כי רוב השתמשותה אמנם הוכן לה בדברים הגופיים, לחולשת שכלה ולהיותה לעבודת האדם. ולזה הוא רחוק שיגיע לה שלמות השכל, אלא שעל כל פנים היא יותר נכבדת מהם, וכולם הם לעבודתה

Gersonides is known for his negative view of women, and this reputation comes from passages like this. Here Gersonides states that women are on a higher level than animals, but not by much. Furthermore, just like the animals are at the service of women, so women’s role is to serve men. In discussing this passage, Menachem Kellner writes: “Gersonides apparently found Darwin’s missing link: woman!”[6]

For another explanation which Modern Orthodox women will probably regard as insulting, but more traditional women will probably see as a compliment, see R. Meir Mazuz,Bayit Ne’eman, no. 52 (parashat Terumah 5777), p. 1, who quotes R. אל :Nissim Gaon as follows: The verse in Proverbs 1:8 states Forsake not the teaching of thy mother”. Yet“ – תטוש תורת אמך cannot mean תורת אמך ,since women don’t have Torah knowledge this. Rather, it means the special holiday foods that the mother makes.

Readers can correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not believe that R. Mazuz’s understanding is correct, and I think R. Mazuz was citing R. Nissim from memory. That is, R. Nissim’s comment has nothing to do with women lacking Torah knowledge and Rather, he cites the .תורת אמך identifying their cooking as verse simply as a general statement about the importance of tradition. Here is the passage of R. Nissim Gaon as cited by R. Maimon the father of Maimonides.[7]

וכתב רבינו נסים במגילת סתרים כי כל מנהגי האומה באלו המנהגות כמו זה. והראש בראש השנה, החלב בפורים ובמוצאי פסח, והפולים ביום הושענא רבה. ואותם המנהגות אין לנו לבזותם ומי שהנהיגם זריז ומשתדל הוא כי הם מעיקרים נעשים ולא יבוזו במנהגי האומה וכבר אמר הנביא ע”ה ואל תטוש תורת אמך, דת אומתך אל תעזוב

Regarding the role and responsibilities of women, R. Mazuz has another interesting comment.[8] As part of his argument that women are not obligated in hearing parashat Zakhor, he says that this commandment is connected to the commandment of destroying Amalek, and women are not able to do this. How do we know that women cannot destroy Amalek and therefore are not commanded in it? “Because if she sees blood and even if she sees a mouse she becomes afraid, so how could she kill Amalek?” While many will not appreciate what they see as R. Mazuz’s flippant tone (which is obviously a joke, as he is well aware that there are women soldiers and doctors), do even feminists wish to claim that killing comes as easy to women as to men? Do they really want to be “equal” with men in this matter? I, for one, have always assumed that if women were running the world, there would be many fewer wars, as only someone who is blind to reality cannot see that men are naturally more inclined to violence than women.

Here is another interesting point relevant to the subject of in explaining the ,היינו .women: Rashi, Menahot 43b s.v talmudic passage dealing with the blessings that a man recites in the morning, states that a woman is to regarded as a maidservant to her husband (i.e., to do his wishes), much like דאשה נמי שפחה לבעלה כעבד לרבו :a slave is to his master

Rashi’s comment is not surprising and has often been quoted. Indeed, although it will trouble modern readers, lots of similar comments can be found in rishonim and aharonim.[9] Furthermore, in at least three places the Talmud refers to a wife with the term shifhah.[10] Yet for a reason I can’t explain, R. Moshe Feinstein was very troubled by this comment of Rashi, and this led him to write something quite problematic.[11] See Dibrot Moshe, Gittin p. 511 (also in Iggerot Moshe, vol. 9, Orah Hayyim no. 2):

ולולי דמסתפינא הייתי אומר שצריך למחקו דח”ו לרש”י לומר דברי הבל כזה, דמן התורה הא ליכא שום שעבוד על האשה לבעלה חוץ מתשמיש ולענין תשמיש הוא משועבד לה יותר דהא עליו איכא גם איסור לאו . . . ואינה מחוייבת לעשות רק עניני הבית ולא עבודת שדה ומעט עשיה בצמר שהיא מלאכה קלה ממלאכות שדרכן של בנות העיר בזה

R. Moshe states that in no way can a woman be generally regarded as under her husband’s authority as only in a few areas does she have obligations to him (much like he has to her). He continues to expound on the way a husband is obligated to treat his wife in order to show that she is far removed from being a maidservant.[12] This is all true, and it would be easy to quote authorities who write similarly. Yet they did not see this as in any way contradicting Rashi’s statement. Understandably, some have expressed great surprise as) הבל upon seeing how R. Moshe refers Rashi’s comment as they do not accept R. Moshe’s point that Rashi could never .(דאשה נמי שפחה לבעלה כעבד לרבו have said

R. Shlomo Aharon Gans goes so far as to say that if thegadol ha-dorhad not been the one to say this, it would be forbidden to write such a thing. He adds the following, bringing support for the notion expressed in Rashi that a wife is like a maidservant (not that she is a maidservant, but she is like one)[13]:

ולא הבנתי דהא הויא קנין כספו, ועי’ תורא”ש קידושין ה’ דהוא מושל עליה ומשעובדת לו וכדכתיב והוא ימשל בך, וא”כ מאי קשיא ליה כ”כ בדברי רש”י אלו

This conception, that a wife is like a maidservant, was actually criticized by R. Hayyim Hirschensohn who called attention to the “barbaric” way Jews treated their wives in the small towns of Galicia, where the wives did not even eat at the same table with their husbands.[14]

וה’ יסלח לו כי ההרגל הרע של בני מדינתו להתגאה על נשותיהן אשר לוקחים אותן רק לרקחות וטבחות ואין מסיבות בשלחן עם בעליהן וחושבים אותם כחמת כו’ [מ”ש: ראה שבת קנב ע”א] ואלמלי עלמא צריכי להו היו בעי רחמי דלבטלי מן העולם ח”ו, ההרגל הפראי הזה אשר בעירות הקטנות בגאליציא ובקצת ערי פולין גרם להרב הנז’ לבלי להרגיש את העלבון אשר עלב לבנות האבות והאמהות אשר קמו גם הן לאם לבנות את בית ישראל

As a curiosity, it is worth noting the opinion of R. Menasheh Klein that a husband should not help his wife with household tasks such as cleaning the dishes, as that is “women’s work”, while the husband works outside the home. (And what about when the wife also works outside the home?) Instead, the husband should use that time for learning Torah and other spiritual pursuits.[15]

כי לכן נתן לו הקב”ה אשה לאדם שיהי’ לו לעזר שתעשה לו צרכי הבית והוא יהיה פנוי בזמן שיש לו ללמוד תורה ולעבודת השם ולא לכבס ולהדיח הכלים אחרי האכילה ולסדר את המטות החיוב על הבעל לפרנס את אשתו ובניו ושאר הזמן כל רגע ורגע ינצל ללימוד התורה ולעבודת השי”ת שמו. ובעונ”ה נשתנה הוסת שהבעלי בתים הצעירים נעשים בעלת בתים מבשלים ומדיחים הכלים והולכים לחניות לקנות צרכי הבית איינקויפען בלע”ז בקיצור עושים כל מלאכת הנשים והנשים עושים מלאכת האנשים

I can only imagine what the reaction of a newlywed wife would be if her husband would tell her that no, he has no plans to help clean the table and do the dishes because that is women’s work.

Related to this is the following story told by R. Yosef Wineberg, the grandson of the Slonimer Rebbe. It is obviously designed to make the “Litvish” look bad.[16]

A newly married Litvishe couple was once sitting together. The wife asked her husband to please make her a cup of tea. He immediately jumps up, puts on his hat and jacket and walks out the door. About an hour later, the husband returns home, removes his hat and jacket and makes her a cup of tea. Puzzled by his strange behavior, she asks for an explanation.

He explains: when you first asked me to make you a cup of tea, I was upset. I am a Talmid Chacham, a scholar, and you are meant to “serve” me, not the opposite. Not wishing to get into an argument, I went to my Rav to ask him what I should do.

The Rav explained to me that “ishto k’gufo”, that the Halacha considers us like one person. Therefore, making tea for you is identical to making tea for me. As I feel no compunctions with serving myself, I returned home to fulfill your request.

In order to show that the husband is the boss of the household, R. David Kimhi states that while the husband calls his wife by her name, the wife does not call her husband by his name, but by some title which shows his superior status.[17]

כי האיש הוא הקורא לאשתו בשמה ולא האשה לאישה, אלא דרך כבוד בלשון אדנות קוראה לו ולא בשמו, כי כל מי שיש לו מעלה אל אחר אין ראוי לאשר למטה ממנו לקרוא אותו בשמו, כמו אביו או רבו או אדניו . . . וכן האשה לבעלה כי אדניה הוא כמו שאמר: והוא ימשוך בך

One of the proofs he offers for this idea is that in Genesis 17:17 Abraham refers to Sarah by her name, but in Genesis Another .(אדני) ”Sarah refers to Abraham as “my lord 18:13 proof he mentions is that when God changes the names of Abraham and Sarah he says to Abraham (Gen. 17:15): “Thou shalt not call her name Sarai.” From this we see that Abraham called his wife by her name. However, when Abraham’s name was changed the Torah states (Gen. 17:5): “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram.” Sarah was not told this, Radak states, as she didn’t refer to her husband by his name. This was rather a general statement, that among those people who call Abraham by his name, they no longer would do so.

Although Radak states that a husband calls his wife by her name, we know that this was not always the case. Thus, we are told that R. Jacob Moellin in speaking to his wife would not call her by her name. When he referred to her in conversation with others, he would call hermein hausfrau (my housewife).[18] The text that records this information notes that already in the Talmud, Shabbat 118b, we find that R. Yose referred to his wife as “my house,” and I think most assume that this was done as a term of respect.[19] The text further notes that the general practice was that both husband and wife did not refer to each other by their first name. Such a practice was also found in the Sephardic world.[20] What this shows us is that contrary to what Radak records, the practice need not have anything to do with the husband being regarded as “superior” to his wife.

With all the discussions in rabbinic literature that show the essential differences between men and woman, let me mention another curiosity that, if you want to be cute, you can say that in one place the Talmud actually refers to women as men. I have in mind Zevahim 67b which, in discussing the burnt offerings brought by two women after childbirth, states:

חטאת לזו ועולה לזו עשה שתיהן למעלה . . . אימור דא”ר יהושע בחד גברא בתרי גברי מי אמר which means “men”, refers to ,גברי In this passage, the word the case of the two women (although the principle enunciated applies to all people).[21]

While on the male-female topic, let me mention something else that is relevant. We all know that the name Avi (short for Avraham) is quite popular. Yet how many know that this is already a biblical name, but used for a woman (2 Kings 18:2)? I want to return to the notion already mentioned in this note, and found in a number of earlier works, that an ape stands between animals and humans. The Sefat Emet, Genesis 18:1, expands on this as follows:

ובין חי למדבר קוף. ואנו נאמר כי אחר מדבר אדם, שעל זה נאמר “אדם” אתם קרוין אדם ולא האומות. וישמעאל הוא הממוצע לכן נקרא פרא אדם, ולכן יד כל בו וידו בכל, כי על ידו יש התקשרות בין מדריגות מדבר למדריגת אדם it means that after the level כי אחר מדבר אדם When he writes ,אדם which means “humanity”, there is the level of ,מדבר of which is the level of the Jewish people. He then adds that the which is why they are אדם and מדבר Arabs stand between is used to show that the Arabs פרא אדם Often .פרא אדם called are on a lower level than other nations. However, here we see that the Arabs are on a higher level, and closer to the Jews than the other nations, as among the nations of the world only no doubt because of their—אדם the Arabs are also called monotheism, see Yevamot 61a—even if this word is placed .פרא together with the negative term

The Sefat Emet’s comment is derived from the Zohar,[22] which as meaning one who possesses the “beginnings פרא אדם explains The Zohar also places the descendants of Ishmael on a .”אדם of higher level than the other nations because they are circumcised. Circumcision was widely practiced even in pagan Arabia, so the reference to circumcision alone would not be enough to date this passage of the Zohar to the post-Islamic period.

R. Jacob Emden, however, cites a different passage in the Zohar that assumes the existence of the Islamic world, meaning that it could not have been written by R. Shimon ben Yohai.[23] He writes:

הנה לפניך שבימי בעל ספר הזוהר כבר היתה אמונת מחמד הישמעאלי בעולם (שנתחדשה בימי אמוראים האחרונים על”ב) כי קודם זמן זה היו .כל הישמעאלים עובדי אלילים גמורים, ככל יתר גוי הארצות

R. Emden also cites another Zoharic passage that assumes Islamic rule in the Land of Israel. He comments:[24]

הרי כי בימי בעל ספר הזוהר היתה אומת ישמעאל שולטת בארץ הקדושה, ודבר ידוע הוא ומפורסם, שלא הגיעו הישמעאלים לממשלה כללית עד שנת שע”ד לאלף החמישי . . . נמצא עכ”פ יותר מחמש מאות שנה אחר רשב”י חובר ספר הזוהר, ואולי מאוחר עוד הרבה מזה, ואיך אפשר להסכים זה עם שמות האומרים אותם הדברים, והמה חבריו או תלמידיו של רשב”י, לפי המובן בלשונו של בעל ספר הזוהר, הלא זה כדבר שאין לו שחר

He cites a third such example and writes:[25]

מלכות ישמעאל לא נתפרסמה ולא נתפשטה בימי תנאים ואמוראים. כי היו אז ממלכה שפלה קטנה וירודה

Returning to the matter of how women have been viewed, R. come—ליצני הדור—Joseph Solomon Delmedigo mentions that jokers up with all sorts of gematrias. When it comes to women not all ,דבש is אשה of them are negative. For example, the gematria of However he also cites a gematria .אשה יפה = שמחה גדולה and which is not very complimentary to R. Delmedigo sees this as a .נקיבה=בקללה and זכר=ברכה .women big joke, but it is actually mentioned by R. Hayyim the and ,ז brother of the Maharal in his Iggeret ha-Tiyul, section it is also found in Ba’al ha-Turim, Gen. 1:27 (with some differences as to which letters are actually included in the gematria).

In 1807 R. Jacob Samson Shabbetai Senigallia[26] published his talmudic commentary Shabbat shel Mi. Here is the title page of the Livorno first edition. (It has been reprinted a number of times). Here is what appears in the book on p. 89b. He is trying to explain why chapters 5 and 6 in tractate Shabbat are next to במה and chapter 6 begins במה בהמה each other. Chapter 5 begins and according to R. Senigallia this is because “birds of ,אשה a feather flock together.”

If he was trying to make a joke, I can understand what he wrote. But who ever heard of making a joke in the middle of a talmudic commentary? Presumably, he was being serious, which leaves us with a very offensive comment.

There is, to be sure, humor in the Talmud, but I don’t know of any examples in talmudic commentaries. Yeshayahu Leibowitz quipped that the Sages must have had a good sense of humor, since they included the following text in the Talmud ,In all seriousness .תלמידי חכמים מרבים שלום בעולם :[27] however, there are indeed humorous passages in the Talmud, as pointed out by R. Moses Salmon.[28] Here is one example he gives (Bava Batra 14a):

The Rabbis said to R. Hamnuna: R. Ammi wrote four hundred scrolls of the Law. He said to them: Perhaps he copied out the תורה צוה לנו משה verse

R. Salmon claims that anyone with a bit of sense can see that R. Hamnuna’s reply is a wisecrack made in response to the obvious exaggeration about R. Ammi.

Nehemiah Samuel Libowitz states that even in the Zohar we have passages that show a humorous side.[29] One of the many examples he points to is Zohar, Bereshit, p. 27a:

וימררו את חייהם בעבודה קשה בקושיא. בחומר קל וחומר. ובלבנים בלבון הלכתא. ובכל עבודה בשדה דא ברייתא. את כל עבודתם וגו’ דא משנה

I have no idea what to make of the following comment from R. Oury Cherki, dealing with humor, which does not sound like something that would be said by a leading kiruv figure (De’ah Tzelula: Olam ve-Adam be-Mishnat ha-Rav Kook [Jerusalem, 2015], p. 246). Rather, it sounds like something one of the maskilim of old would say.

התורה שבעל-פה אינה מובנה ללא שותפות רוח האומה. לכן כשלומדים הלכה רצוי להצטייד בחוש הומור, שכן לפעמים הדברים נראים משונים למדי. למשל, הכנת כוס תה בשבת. התלמוד אומר שאסור לשפוך מים קרים לתוך החמים אבל מים חמים לתוך הקרים מותר, כי יש כלל ש”תתאה גבר”, התחתון גובר. כששופכים מים חמים לתוך הקרים המים הקרים מתחממים ומתבשלים מה שאין כן ההפך – המים החמים מתקררים. יש כאן בהחלט סוג של הומור

I also found the following interesting comment by Moshe Meisels, the editor of Ha-Doar, in a letter to Chaim Bloch.[30] He suggests that the talmudic prohibition against a non-Jew observing the Sabbath is an example of rabbinic wit, and is not to be understood literally.

ואגב, לא אהא בבחינת מורה הלכה לפני רבו אם אינני מתאפק מלהביא מעין חידוש שנתחדש לי הקטן באחד המאמרים התמוהים בתלמוד מן הסוג הנ”ל, והוא אמרם: עכו”ם ששבת חייב מיתה, שנאמר יום ולילה לא ישבותו וכו’. ואין צורך להרבות דברים על הזרות שבדבר: מה איכפת למי אם שבת או לא שבת, ומה היא הראיה מאותו פסוק, המוסב על קיץ וחורף וכו’, ומה ענינו לכאן ולעכו”ם דוקא? ונראה לי שכל המאמר בא בדרך חידוד, וזה מובנו: עכו”ם ששבת מן הדין שיהא חייב מיתה בדיניהם. מדוע? ישראל שלא שבת חייב מיתה, משום שעל א-לוהיו נאמר וישבות ביום השביעי וכו’, אבל עובד כוכבים ומזלות, שעליהם נאמר יום ולילה לא ישבותו, מן הדין שעובדיהם יהיו חייבים מיתה אם שינו מדרך אלהיהם ושבתו

On the matter of non-Jews observing the Sabbath, R. Yaakov Koppel Schwartz makes a fascinating suggestion, which he acknowledges has no support in the rishonim and therefore he has doubts whether it is correct.[31] The prohibition against labor on the Sabbath is in remembrance of the fact that we were slaves and God redeemed us. Therefore, it is understandable why non-Jews are forbidden to commemorate the Sabbath by abstaining from work, as this has no connection to them. However, there is another reason given for the Sabbath and that is so that we remember the creation of the world. Non-Jews are also supposed to acknowledge this and therefore there should be nothing wrong with non-Jews having some sort of celebration in honor of the Sabbath.

אבל הכיבוד והקידוש של יום השבת, שהוא משום אמונת חידוש העולם, שייך שגם הגויים יהיו בהם ואינם מנועים מלכבד ולענג את השבת

If we follow R. Schwartz’s approach, this is something that could be suggested for Noahides whose “religion” is lacking any rituals, which for most people is an essential component of their religion.

* * * * * * * *

[1] Ha-Tzofeh, June 16, 1959, p. 2. [2] Orhot Hayyim, Or Etzion ed. (Merkaz Shapira, 2017), p. 106, quoted by R. Joseph Karo, Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim 51 (end). Regarding negative expressions directed against God, there is an interesting passage in R. Yedidiah Solomon Raphael Norzi, Minhat Shai, Deut. 8:3. To understand it one must know that the old French word “fi” expressed disdain or disgust. See here. The issue Norzi discusses is that the verse reads:

כִּי עַל-כָּל-מוֹצָא פִי-ה‘

Norzi cites a view that in this case there should be a dagesh even though that is not in accord with the פי in the word general rule, because without the dagesh, reading it as “fi” would be disrespectful to God:

כי לשון גנאי הוא בלשון צרפת וחלילה לשם יתברך

Norzi completely rejects this and states that the rules of biblical grammar are not to be changed because of how words sound in languages other than Hebrew (and there are indeed examples where biblical Hebrew words sound like profanity in other languages).

ואין לנו לחוש ללשון צרפת שאין מבטלין דרכי לשון הקדש מפני שאר לשונות

See also Samuel David Luzzatto, Prolegomena to a Grammar of the Hebrew Language, trans. Aaron D. Rubin (Piscataway, N.J., 2005), pp. 133-134. R. Meir Mazuz points out ,פ Regarding the pronunciation of that the Vilna Gaon, Commentary to Tikunei Zohar, section 19, p. 38d (p. 166 in R. Zuriel’s edition), mistakenly believed with and without adagesh the same פ that Sephardim pronounce with and without dagesha the ת way (just as they pronounce same way). R. Mazuz notes that the Vilna Gaon’s point is repeated by R. Baruch Epstein, Mekor Barukh, vol. 1, p. 397b (without mentioning the Gaon). See Mazuz,Bayit Ne’eman (Humash), vol. 1, p. 13 (first pagination). [3] Hazon Ish, Yoreh Deah 62:21. [4] In my earlier post I cited R. Samson Raphael Hirsch as adopting the notion that women are created on a higher spiritual level than men. I neglected to note that Shaye J. D. Cohen earlier discussed Hirsch’s approach. See Cohen,Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised (Berkeley, 2005), pp. 165ff. [5] “Eshet Hayil: Kavim li-Demutah u-le-Ma’amadah shel ha- Ishah be-Hagut ha-Yehudit ha-Shesh Esreh,” in Ephraim Hazan and Shmuel Refael, eds. Mahbarot li-Yehudit (Ramat-Gan, 2012), p. 286. [6] Torah in The Observatory (Boston, 2010), p. 287. I earlier discussed Ralbag here. [7] See R. Yaakov Moshe Toledano, Sarid u-Falit (Tel Aviv, [1945]), p. 8. [8] Bayit Ne’eman no. 153 (parashat Vayikra 5779), p. 2. [9] See e.g., R. Israel Ibn Al Nakawa, Menorat ha-Maor, ed. Enelow, vol. 4, pp. 32-33, who instructs a wife as follows :(that so troubled R. Moshe שפחה using the word)

ועושה צרכיו בעצמה ולא על ידי אחרים. ואפי’ היו לה כמה עבדים וכמה שפחות, תעמוד היא ותשרתנו, ותקראנו אדוני . . .ויהיו עיניה תלויין לו, כעיני שפחה אל יד גבירתה

For a translation of this passage, heresee. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ishut 15:20, says that a .כמו שר או מלך wife should regard her husband

Radak, Gen. 3:16, writes: והוא ימשול בך: לצוות עליך מה שירצה כאדון על עבד

Ramban, Gen. 3:16, explains that as a result of Eve’s sin, the relationship of man and woman was changed. From that point on:

והוא יחזיק בה כשפחה ואין המנהג להיות העבד משתוקק לקנות אדון לעצמו אבל יברח ממנו ברצונו

R. Bahya ben Asher, Gen. 3:16, writes:

ואל אישך תשוקתך: שאע”פ שהאשה משועבדת ברשות הבעל ומנהג העבד לברוח מן האדון כדי שלא ישתעבד, גזר בזאת שתהיה משתוקקת לבעל ושתרצה להשתעבד לו בהפך מן המנהג

See also R. Chaim Rapoport’s letter in myIggerot Malkhei Rabbanan, p. 172.

R. Avraham Blumenkrantz, Gefen Poriah, p. 352, quotes approvingly another rabbi who states as follows (emphasis added):

Her tears are ever ready to flow at the most miniscule suggestion of being dealt with as a maidservant. She will She will consent to .והוא ימשל בך concede you the service of too בית in the דגש but don’t accent the ,בעלי call you heavily. She must constantly be reassured that there is honor and dignity in her subservience. Honor her more than you honor yourself. She must be compensated for her subjugation, and be made to feel that she has a genuine share in the dignity of the throne.

Do haredi women really feel that they are subservient or subjugated? Do haredi men feel this way about their wives? Hasn’t haredi society accepted the notion of separate but equal when it comes to men and women? [10] Sanhedrin 39a, Yevamot 113a, Nedarim 38b. [11] As is well known, and I have written about previously, R. Moshe often rejected the authenticity of texts that he found problematic. Another example of this with regard to Rashi on the Talmud is found in Iggerot Moshe, Even ha-Ezer, vol. 4, no. 64:1. Here R. Moshe says to delete words in Rashi even though, as he notes, these words are found in “Rashi” on the Rif and in R. Nissim. See the strong responses to R. Moshe quoted in R. Yonason Rosman, Petihat ha-Iggerot, pp. 605-606. One of these responses is from R. Menasheh Klein in his notes to R. Eyal Shraga, Minhat Ish, vol. 1, pp. 302-303. R. Klein writes:

וח”ו ואטו עד כמה נילך ונמחוק בדברי רבותינו ז”ל שנאמרו ברוה”ק, ולולי דמספינא הייתי אומר דאיזה תלמיד טועה כתבו, אבל פשוט דדברי רש”י נכונים וליכא כאן טעות כלל

”that a “mistaken student—לולי דמספינא—When R. Klein suggests is responsible for the problematic passage in Iggerot Moshe, he does not mean it seriously. This is just his respectful way of saying that R. Moshe’s position is completely without basis. He uses the same language in Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 12, Yoreh Deah no. 214. There he responds to R. Moshe’s statement that he doesn’t know who R. Menahem Tziyoni is, but since he quotes a heretical—in R. Moshe’s opinion—passage from R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary on the Torah, therefore R. Tziyoni’s work must be banned together with R. Judah he- Hasid’s commentary. [12] R. Moshe also famously states that women do not have any less holiness than men. See Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim vol. 4, no. 49 (p. 81). See also the new Mesorat Moshe, vol. 4, p. 476. This position is at odds with many earlier writers who saw men as holier because they are commanded in more mitzvot. This is also Maimonides’ position in his commentary to Horayot 3:7. See R. Chaim Rapoport’s discussion in Kovetz Hearot u-Veurim, no. 908 (2006), pp. 138ff. Yet see R. Dov Halbertal, Erekh ha-Hayyim be-Halakhah (Jerusalem, 2004), vol. 2, p. 399, who has a different approach and makes the point that just because a Kohen and Levi are to be saved before an Israel, no one would say that the Kohen and Levi have more holiness. See also R. Yitzhak Barda, Yitzhak Yeranen, vol. 11, p. 249, that women are holier than men. He offers an original explanation of this notion.

שהאשה שהקב”ה הפריש ממנו, מהצלע שלו, הוא מופרש, וממילא כל מופרש קדוש, ואז האשה יותר קדושה מהאיש. ובזה מובן למה האיש מקדש את האשה, לא אומר לה הרי את אשתי, או כל סממן לשון של נישואין, חברה או שותפה וכו’, זולתי: הרי את מקודשת לי! לפי שהקב”ה קבע כל מופרש קדוש

[13] Kinyan Shlomo, Yevamot, p. 89. See also R. Natan Einfeld, Minhat Natan: Kiddushin, pp. 139-140, who cites other sources in rejecting R. Moshe’s point. [14] Malki ba-Kodesh, vol. 4, p. 50a. See R. Menasheh Klein, Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 12, no. 351, for a defense of the practice of husbands and wives eating separately. [15] Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 7 no. 155 (called to my attention by R. Aviad Stollman). [16] The story is recorded by R. Chaim Dalfin,Faces and Places Boro Park (Brooklyn, 2017), p. 149. [17] Commentary to Gen. 17:15. See the rejection of Radak’s opinion in R. Betzalel Stern, Be-Tzel ha-Hokhmah, vol. 1, no. 70. [18] Maharil, Likutim (p. 610 in the Makhon Yerushalayim edition). [19] On the other hand, R. Meir Schiff (Maharam Schiff), Gittin 52a, explains that R. Yose referred to his Yet the .אשה רעה :wife this way because she was a bad wife proof he brings for this is actually from a different R. Yose. See R. Judah Leib Maimon, ed., Sefer ha-Gra, vol. 1, p. 110 in the note. Regarding “bad wives”, R. Elazar of Worms is quoted as follows in R. Alexander Suslin,Sefer ha-Agudah, ed. Brizel, Yevamot, no. 78 (p. 41):

מי שיש לו אשה רעה יסבול יקבל ברצון ויקבל בשמחה ולא יראה פני גהינם

What does R. Elazar mean that if you suffer under a bad wife you will not see gehinnom? R. Moses Guedemann explains that with a bad wife you already saw gehinnom in your lifetime, so there is no need to see if after death. See Ha-Torah ve-ha- Hayyim, trans. Friedberg (Warsaw, 1897), vol. 1, p. 194:

כי פני הגיהנם כבר ראה בחייו

Regarding “good wives” see R. Shlomo Hoss, Kerem Shlomo, no. 43, who writes:

אין לך כשרה בנשים אלא אשה שעושה רצון בעלה: אהע”ז ס”ס ס”ט (אך (אשת חיל כזאת מי ימצא

R. Solomon Zvi Schueck was shocked at R. Hoss’ final comment, that one cannot find a wife who does the wishes of her husband. R. Schueck writes that based on this passage he assumed that R. Hoss must not have had a good wife.

נראה לי שהי’ לו אשה רעה, וממנה דן על כל הנשים שבישראל

See She’elot u-Teshuvot Rashban, Even ha-Ezer, no. 99 (p. 88b). He further tells us that he asked one of R. Hoss’ students who confirmed that this was indeed the case. [20] See Tuvia Preschel, Ma’amrei Tuvyah, vol. 5, p. 142. [21] See Or Torah, Shevat 5780, p. 460. [22] Exodus 86a, 87a. [23] Mitpahat Sefarim, ch. 4 (at the beginning; p. 20 in the Jerusalem 1995 edition). In R. Reuven Rapoport’s edition of Mitpahat Sefarim, with his commentary Itur Soferim, p. 13, R. Rapoport sees it as obvious that this passage in the Zohar is a later interpolation much like there are Savoraic additions in the Talmud. [24] Mitpahat Sefarim, ch. 4 (p. 27 in the Jerusalem 1995 edition). [25] Mitpahat Sefarim, ch. 4 (p. 54 in the Jerusalem 1995 edition). Regarding the larger issue that R. Emden points to, see Ronald C. Kiener, “The Image of Islam in the Zohar,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8 (1989), pp. 43-65. [26] See the recent discussion of R. Senigallia by R. Moshe Maimon in the Seforim Blog here. [27] Sihot al Pirkei Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot (Jerusalem, 2003), p. 289. [28] Netiv Moshe (Vienna, 1897), pp. 45-46. [29] “Halatzot ve-Divrei Bikoret be-Sefer ha-Zohar,” Ha-Tzofeh le-Hokhmat Yisrael 11 (1927), pp. 33-45. For more on humor in the Talmud, see Yehoshua Ovsay, Ma’amarim u-Reshimot (New York, 1946), ch. 1; Meyer Heller, “Humor in the Talmud” (unpublished masters dissertation, Hebrew Union College, 1950), available here; R. Mordechai Hacohen, “Humor, Satirah, u-Vedihah be-Fi Hazal,” Mahanayim 67 (5722), pp. 8-19; and Ezra Brand’s post here. From Brand I learned that David Lifshitz wrote an entire doctorate on the subject. See also my posts here and here where I discuss Siftei Hakhamim’s comment that Moses thought God was joking with him, and how this has been censored in a recent edition. See also J. Chotzner, Hebrew Humor and Other Essays (London, 1905); Nehemiah Samuel Libowitz, Ha-Shomea Yitzhak (New York, 1907). [30] See here (Chaim Bloch Collection, Leo Baeck Institute, 7155-7156, 1/13). [31] Likutei Diburim, vol. 4, pp. 24-25.

Response to Criticism Part 4; Rabbi Zvi Yehuda and the Hazon Ish

Response to Criticism Part 4; Rabbi Zvi Yehuda and the Hazon Ish

Marc B. Shapiro

Continued from here. 1. In Limits,p. 14 n. 55, I write

I should call attention to a significant philosophical and halakhic point which appears to have gone unnoticed. The Vilna Gaon (R. Elijah b. Solomon Zalman (1720-97) apparently believed that the First and Second Principles are the only true Principles in Judaism. According to him, one who believes in God’s existence and unity, despite his other sins, is regarded as a Jew in good standing and he is thus able to be included in a minyan (quorum for public prayer). None of the numerous discussions regarding whether a Sabbath violator maybe in included in a minyan seems to have taken note of the Gaon’s comment, which appears in his commentary on Tikunei Zohar, 42a.

Grossman writes:

Apparently, concludes Shapiro, since the Gaon cites only idolatry as invalidating prayer and does not cite the rest of the Thirteen Principles, he is disputing Rambam’s classification of the others as binding fundamentals. However, this source has no bearing on the Principles. The Gaon’s comment refers to counting one for a minyan and to having one’s prayer accepted by God. He is clearly not referring to the Principles, since [in his commentary to Tikunei Zohar] he includes in the metaphor of the scorpion the sin of consorting with gentile women, which is unrelated to any Principle. (p. 48)

The first thing to note is that I never said that the Vilna Gaon disputed “the Rambam’s classification of the others [other Principles] as binding fundamentals.” Of course the Gaon held that people must believe that there is prophecy, that God gave the Torah, that there will be a Messiah, etc. But that is not what I am referring to when I say that for the Gaon the First and Second Principles are the only true Principles in Judaism. As I explain, for the Rambam the Thirteen Principles are special in that if you deny any of them you are to be regarded as having removed yourself from the Jewish people. When the Gaon makes the fascinating comment that belief in the First and Second Principles are enough to be regarded as part of the Jewish people, thus enabling one to be counted in a minyan, this means that as far as he is concerned (in this passage at least), only these beliefs qualify as Principles in the absolute sense that denial of them removes you halakhically from the Jewish people. If I were writing the book today, I would say that the Gaon focuses on three Principles, since he includes belief in the unity of God and an affirmation of God’s corporeality (Principle no. 3) certainly violates God’s unity.

I have to say, however, that while the Gaon’s comment is of great importance when it comes to the issue of Sabbath violation, I am no longer sure about the correctness of my larger point. It could just as well be that when the Gaon derives from the passage in Tikunei Zohar that if you believe in God and His unity, despite your other sins, you are still a Jew in good standing, it does not necessarily mean that these are the only true Principles. It could be that he is merely explicating the meaning of the passage in Tikunei Zohar, which relates to God, but that if it was a different passage he could have spoken about different principles, for example, as long as you believe in the Messiah and the resurrection even if you sin you are still a Jew in good standing. Here is some of what the Gaon writes:

כ”ז שמאמין באחדותו ית’ אפי’ עובר כמה עבירות אינו מומר לכל התורה ואעפ”י שחטא ישראל הוא ומצטרף למנין כמ”ש עבריין כו’ ונכלל תפלתו בכלל ישראל . . . אבל עקרב הוא המודה בעבודת כוכבים ומשתחוה לאל אחר וכן בבת אל נכר אז הקוץ ח”ו מסתלק מצדו וזהו פירוד הגמור וז”ש ואיהו פוסק וברח כו’ ר”ל יוסף במדרגתו ומסתלק הקב”ה ממנו כלל וכלל ואין תפלתו עולה כלל

In the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:7, the Rambam says that if you believe that God has a physical form you are a heretic, and Rabad famously defends those who did not know any better. According to Rabad, although these people are wrong they are certainly not heretics because of their mistake. Regarding this dispute there is R. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s famous statement in defense of the Rambam’s position that “one who is nebech an epikores is still an epikores.”[1]

In Limits I referred to the Hazon Ish’s opinion that the Rambam actually agrees with Rabad when dealing with a heretic who does not know any better. I further note, in agreement with R. Hayyim, that the Hazon Ish’s suggestion cannot be correct, and the Rambam, Guide 1:36, specifically rejects the Hazon Ish’s point. In fact, R. Kafih thinks that the Rambam saw Rabad’s criticism of what he wrote in the Mishneh Torah, and the end of Guide 1:36 was written in response to Rabad and is the Rambam’s defense of his position that faulty education or simply ignorance is no defense when it comes to belief in God’s corporeality.[2] In truth, even if we did not have this chapter of the Guide, the Hazon Ish’s position cannot be sustained, as it is in opposition to the Rambam’s entire conception of immortality which is a natural process. Thus, there is no room to raise questions about “fairness” or why does God not judge an ignorant person mercifully and grant him a share the World to Come if through no fault of his own he believes that God has a physical form.

Grossman, on the other hand (p. 49), claims that a close reading of the Guide supports the Hazon Ish’s position that someone who does not know any better, and who has no one to teach him, is not to be regarded as a heretic. Suffice it to say all scholars of the philosophy of the Rambam agree with R. Hayyim in this matter. Furthermore, the issue is not whether we regard someone as a heretic or not. There could be societal reasons that determine whether or not one is to be regarded as such. The dispute between the Rambam and Rabad is regarding someone who doesn’t know any better and denies a principle of faith, does such a person have a share in the World to Come? It is clear, as Rabad recognized, that according to the Rambam the answer is no. That is why I wrote that when the Hazon Ish explained the Rambam to really be agreeing with Rabad—that an unwitting heretic has a share in the World to Come—that this approach should be seen as in opposition to the Rambam’s position, even though the Hazon Ish was offering his approach as aninterpretation of the Rambam.[3]

Grossman then writes (p. 49 n. 65): “In another example of the same hubris towards a giant of Torah scholarship, Shapiro, on p. 37, asserts that the Chazon Ish’s acceptance of Torah She- be’al Peh as having Divine authority (Iggeros 1:16 [should be 15]) is disputing Rambam. Chazon Ish there is merely emphasizing Rambam’s Eighth Principle, but Shapiro claims that Chazon Ish actually ‘added a new dogma.’”

The reader who turns to my book, p. 37, will find that contrary to what Grossman states, I do not mention anything about Torah she-be’al peh. The issue I was concerned with is the authority of Aggadah. In one of his most often quoted letters (Kovetz Iggerot Hazon Ish, 1:15), the Hazon Ish writes that all aggadot have their origin in the sages’ prophetic power, and one who denies this is a heretic.

משרשי האמונה שכל הנאמר בגמ’ בין במשנה ובין בגמ’ בין בהלכה ובין באגדה, הם הם הדברים שנתגלו לנו ע”י כח נבואי שהוא כח נשיקה של השכל הנאצל, עם השכל המורכב בגוף . . . נרתעים אנחנו לשמוע הטלת ספק בדברי חז”ל בין בהלכה בין באגדה, כשמועה של גידוף ר”ל, והנוטה מזה הוא לפי קבלתנו ככופר בדברי חז”ל, ושחיטתו נבילה, ופסול לעדות, ועוד, ולכן נגעו דבריך בלבי

Incidentally, in the published version of the letter it has

והנוטה מזה הוא לפי קבלתנו ככופר כדברי חז”ל

Here is the section of the actual letter of the Hazon Ish .ככופר בדברי חז”ל where you can see that it should read Searching on Otzar haChochma, I see that almost everyone who cites this passage corrects the printing error.

It is with regard to this statement about aggadah, and this statement alone, that I spoke of a new dogma—which can perhaps already be seen in the Maharal if not earlier—that is not held by the Rambam who, together with the entire geonic and medieval Sephardic rabbinic tradition, did not have such a view about the binding nature of all aggadot. The reader of Grossman’s article who does not examine my book would think that I claimed that the Rambam did not believe that Torah she- be’al Peh has divine authority. Yet the difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Hazon Ish is over a different matter, namely, what is included in Torah she-be’al Peh. In fact, this is not really a dispute between the Rambam and the Hazon Ish, but a dispute between two traditions regarding how to understand Aggadah.

Incidentally, in the Hazon Ish’s letter just mentioned, in discussing the difference between prophecy and ruah ha-kodesh, he says something directly in opposition to the Rambam’s view.

אבל יש הבדל יסודי בין נבואה לרוה”ק. נבואה, אין השכל המורכב של האדם משתתף בה, אלא אחרי התנאים הסגוליים שנתעלה בהם עד שזכה לזוהר נבואי, אפשר לו להיות לכלי קולט דעת. . . , מבלי עיון ועמל שכלי, אבל רוה”ק היא יגיעת העיון ברב עמל ובמשנה מרץ, עד שמתוסף בו דעת ותבונה בלתי טבעי

In the published version of the letter there are three periods which I have underlined in. Usually when דעת after the word there are three periods it means that something has been removed from the letter, but in this case nothing has been removed. In fact, in the original letter there are only two periods, followed by a comma, and I don’t know why the Hazon Ish used these periods.

Continuing with Grossman, he sees it as obvious that the Hazon Ish’s opinion regarding an unwitting heretic is exactly what the Rambam held, and in support of this he points to Hilkhot Mamrim 3:1-3. Here the Rambam states that Karaites, who were raised with heretical beliefs and don’t know any better, are not to be judged like the original Karaite heretics who consciously rejected the Oral Law. With those who don’t know any better the Rambam counsels “not to rush to kill them,” but to draw them close to Torah with words of peace. (The words “not to rush to kill them” were removed from some printings.)

Does this passage have any relevance to the Rambam’s view of unintentional heresy? The answer is no, as here the Rambam is only counseling tolerance when dealing with Karaites who don’t know any better. He is only concerned with howwe should relate to them. Rather than hating them and hoping for their destruction, which is normally the case with regard to heretics, the Rambam tells us that we should relate to the Karaites in a positive way and attempt to convince them to abandon their mistaken path. However, from the theological perspective, a heretic has no share in the World to Come and cannot be exculpated based on the argument that he does not know any better. I make this argument in Limits, p. 12, and it is also affirmed by R. Chaim Rapoport.[4]

Not only is this the peshat in the Rambam, but no other understanding works within the context of his philosophical system. That is, the Rambam’s entire philosophical understanding of the World to Come does not work with the notion that an unwitting heretic can also have a share in the World to Come. Any interpretations that assume otherwise are simply not in line with the Rambam’s approach, an approach that was well understood by both his supporters and opponents who argued at great length about this matter. It was also recognized by R. Hayyim who knew theGuide of the Perplexed well. R. Velvel, in discussing the passage in Hilkhot Mamrim pointed to by Grossman, stated exactly what I have just explained. Here are his words as quoted by R. Moshe Sternbuch[5]:

הרי מפורש בדבריו [הרמב”ם] דמה שהוא אנוס מועיל רק לענין שראוי. להחזירם בתשובה ולמשכם לחזור לאיתן התורה, אבל כל זמן שלא חזרו הם מומרים באונס, ושמם מומרים ואפיקורסים

If I were to argue in the fashion of Grossman, I could say that by asserting that the Hazon Ish is simply following what the Rambam says in Hilkhot Mamrim, that Grossman shows disrespect to R. Hayyim and R. Velvel, by not even seeing their positions as worthy of discussion.

There is a parallel to what we have been discussing elsewhere in the Mishneh Torah. In Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 2:5 the Rambam states that the repentance of heretics minim( ) is never accepted. Yet in Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:14 the Rambam states that heretics who repent have a share in the World to Come. The Rambam was asked about this apparent contradiction and he replied that indeed there is no contradiction.[6] In Hilkhot Avodah Zarah he is speaking about how the Jewish community is to relate to heretics. As far as the community is concerned, even if a heretic repents the community is not to accept him, as one can never be sure that his repentance is authentic. However, Hilkhot Teshuvah is referring to the heretic’s relationship with God. As far as God is concerned, a true repentance is always accepted. (I don’t know of anyone today who accepts the Rambam’s opinion in this matter. If, say, a leading atheist philosopher or Reform rabbi decided to become Orthodox, not only would the community accept him, but people would make a very big deal of this and he would become a sought-after speaker at Orthodox synagogues.)

Grossman writes:

In an attempt to list various authorities who took issue with Maimonides, Shapiro tells us that “[i]n Abarbanel’s mind, only limited attention . . . should be paid to Maimonides’ early formulation of dogma, and it would certainly be improper to make conclusions about his theological views on the basis of a text designed for beginners.” (p. 50)

My citing of Abarbanel on p. 7 of my book has nothing to do with authorities who took issue with Maimonides. The mention of Abarbanel is with reference to my discussion about how the Thirteen Principles do not appear as a unit in theMishneh Torah or the Guide, and in this regard I cited Abarbanel who writes as follows in Rosh Amanah, ch. 23:

This explains why he did not list these principles in the Guide, in which he investigated deeply into the faith of the Torah, but mentioned them rather in his Commentary on the Mishnah, which he wrote in his youth. He postulated the principles for the masses, and for beginners in the study of Mishnah, but not for those individuals who plumbed the knowledge of truth for whom he wrote theGuide .

Following his misunderstanding of my point, Grossman spends the next page explaining that Abarbanel accepts the truth of the Rambam’s Principles, a fact that I never denied. However, Abarbanel also believes that for the most profound understanding of the Rambam’s theological views, one needs to turn to the Guide. As I mention in the book, pp. 32-33, Abarbanel also does not accept the Maimonidean concept of Principles of Faith.

Regarding the Rambam positing Thirteen Principles of Faith, which I claimed is a novelty of the Rambam, let me cite R. Moses Sofer who says exactly this.[7]

י”ג העיקרים המציא הרמב”ם שהוא היה הממציא הראשון בזה, ואשר לפנים לא ידענום Grossman’s final comment in the first half of his review is as follows (p. 52):

Another example of Shapiro’s proofs that Rambam’s theology differs from one work to another is the following. In his Commentary on the Mishna, Rambam states that “lack of belief in any of the Principles makes one a heretic.” [Quotation from Limits, p. 8] Yet, in his Mishneh Torah, he writes (Shapiro’s translation): “Whoever permits the thought to enter his mind that there is another deity besides God violates a prohibition, as it is said: You shall have no other gods before me . . . and denies the essence of religion – this doctrine being the great principle on which everything depends.”

This proves, says Shapiro, that one is not considered a heretic for such thoughts since the Rambam does not say that one who holds these beliefs is a heretic. However, the very source he adduces clearly says the opposite. The words kofer be-ikar,[8] used by the Rambam in this quotation, are a synonym for “heretic,” even according to Shapiro’s rendition of the words as one who “denies the essence of religion.”

If the Rambam writes that recognition of God as the source of all existence is a Principle upon which all of Judaism stands, it is obviously a Principle of faith.

I don’t think that anyone who reads these paragraphs will have a clue as to what my point was. What I noted is that in the Commentary on the Mishnah, in discussing Principles of Faith, Maimonides speaks of belief (or knowledge, depending on how you translate). This is a mental state. However, in Hilkhot Teshuvah, in discussing what makes someone a heretic, Maimonides writes: “One who says”.[9] In other words, he speaks of verbalizing one’s heresy publicly, not simply belief. If all we had was Hilkhot Teshuvah, one could conclude that even one who has heretical ideas, but conducts himself as a good Jew publicly, does not lose his share in the World to Come.

In the book I then turned to Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah 1:6 which speaks about one who imagines that there is another God, and by doing so denies the essence of Judaism. A similar comment can be found in Hilkhot Ishut 8:6 where the Rambam writes: “For the sin of idol worship is so great that even when a person thinks of serving [idols] in his heart [without acting upon it] he is considered wicked.” I noted that while a person who believes something heretical like this has, in his mind, denied the essence of Judaism, as long as his heresy is not publicly voiced he apparently is not to be regarded as a complete heretic with all the communal implications this implies. (For example, if you found someone’s private diary which revealed that he denied certain basic principles of faith, as far as the community is concerned he would apparently remain a Jew in good standing as he never publicized his heresy. But he would still have no share in the World to Come.)

It is clear that the Rambam believes that one who affirms a heretical doctrine loses his share in the World to Come, no matter what the reason he does so. But we need to ask why the Rambam specifically uses the formulation of “one who says”. The easiest answer is that he was simply adopting, and making wider use of, the language found in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1, which also categorizes two types of heresy by using the expression “one who says.”

It makes sense to assume that only one who publicly verbalizes his heresy is to be treated as a heretic by the larger community, but despite the language in the Mishnah, I think many will still wonder why in Hilkhot Teshuvah, which speaks of losing one’s share in the World to Come, Maimonides also uses the language “One who says.” I don’t have an answer to this question. All I did in the book was note that the Rambam’s formulation in the Mishneh Torah is different than what he writes in the Commentary on the Mishnah. Although I have found some rabbinic discussions of this problem, I am surprised that none of the major commentaries take up the in defining האומר issue of why the Rambam uses the word heresy. It seems that they would agree with R. Uri Tieger[10] who writes:

לאו דוקא האומר אלא אפי’ חושב כן ולא מוציא בפיו

It is noteworthy, though, that immediately following these words R. Tieger offers an alternative approach which speaks to the very point I was discussing

וי”א דאף דכל הני שרשי איסורם הוא במחשבה מ”מ לא נחתם עונם עד כדי שיקראו מינים ואפיקורסים עד שיוציאו הדברים בפיהם

R. Avraham Gottesman also raises the issue, and he too sees the Rambam’s formulation in the Mishneh Torah as possibly significant.[11]

האומר . . . הרי שלא הזכיר גם שם ממחשבה. ואולי תנא ושייר או לא‘ רצה להחזיקו לאפיקורס ע”י העדר אמונת מחשבה כי רבות מחשבות בלב איש שאין בהם ממש וגם רוב מחשבות אין הקב”ה מצרפן למעשה חוץ ממחשבות ע”ז כדאיתא בגמ

All this is important and worth exploring. But let us return to Grossman, who again attempts to make me look like a fool. He states: “This proves, says Shapiro, that one is not considered a heretic for such thoughts since the Rambam does not say that one who holds these beliefs is a heretic.” Grossman makes this false statement based on my discussion on pp. 8-9. Yet if he had only turned to page 13, at the end of my discussion of this matter, he would have found that I write as follows:

We must therefore conclude that Maimonides’ use of the words “one who says” in describing a heretic is only in imitation of Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1 where the same formulation is found, and not too much should be read into this. One who believes in a corporeal God or in the existence of many gods, even without saying so publicly, is indeed a heretic as far as Maimonidean theology is concerned. Such a one will not face any penalties from an earthly court, but he is certainly denied a share in the world to come.

In other words, my conclusion is the exact opposite of what Grossman attacks me for (and is indeed in line with Grossman’s own opinion).

R. Nissim of ,המאמין as opposed to האומר As for the word Marseilles writes as follows with reference to the usage of [in Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1.[12 האומר the term

והאומר אין תורה מן השמים, ולא אמר “המאמין” כי באמירה לבד הוא מזיק לרבים וכופר בתורה ואף אם יאמין כמונו שהיא רבת התועלת כי הוא מחטיא הכונה והופך קערה על פיה . . . ועל זה אמרו ז”ל: “האומר” כי אף אם יפרש ויתקן דבורו באיזה צד מן התקון ‘והפירוש, לא יועיל לו שלא יקרא כופר. כי הוא מביא אחרים להחליש תקותם בתורה, ומחטיא כונת השם ית

This is a very original approach that some might wish to use to explain the Rambam as well. According to R. Nissim, what is important is the public declaration as this has the result of leading others to heresy. In fact, even if you really don’t believe what you are saying, since you are publicly stating a heretical position this is enough for you to be regarded as a heretic.

I have now responded to every comment of Grossman in the first half of his review, where he discusses broad themes. The second half of the review, which we turn to next, discusses specific points about the Principles. For those who have asked why I am taking the trouble to respond to every single point of Grossman, the answer is that it gives me a chance to revisit texts that I spent so much time on years ago. Secondly, it gives me the opportunity to share much new material that I think will be of interest to readers. Before ending I would like to add a few more points. Earlier I mentioned that R. Hayyim knew the Guide of the Perplexed well. Some might be wondering what the basis for this statement is, because unlike the Rogochover, R. Hayyim does not discuss the Guide in his works. I am relying on R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik who testified that R. Hayyim wanted to write a commentary on the Guide (as well as on the Minhat Hinnukh), but he never had the time.[13] Here is how he is quoted in R. Zvi Yosef Reichman, Reshimot Shiurim: Sukkah, p. 258:

ואמנם כלל גדול אצלנו שאין להקשות על סתירה שבין ספר היד לספר מורה הנבוכים, כי כן קבל רבינו שליט”א מפי זקנו מו”ר הגר”ח זצוק”ל, וזקנו זצ”ל קבע כך כמופלג גדול בספר מורה נבוכים שרצה לכתוב עליו פירוש. גם חשב לכתוב הערות על הספר מנחת חינוך. ברם שתי המחשבות לא יצאו לפועל מפני טרדות בזמן; וחבל

R. Hayyim’s knowledge of the Guide is noteworthy since, as R. Aharon Rakeffet has commented many times, R. Moshe Soloveichik “never held the book in his hands.” While this might be an exaggeration, the underlying point is that R. Moshe had no interest in, or knowledge of, the Guide. I can’t say whether there is any influence of the Guide on R. Hayyim’s commentary on the Mishneh Torah. R. Eliyahu Soloveitchik actually cites the Guide as standing in opposition to R. Hayyim’s famous explanation of the two types of kavanah, found in Hiddushei Rabbenu Hayyim Halevi, Hilkhot Tefillah 4:1.[14]

Another noteworthy difference between R. Hayyim and the Guide is the following: The Rambam in Guide 2:45 explains that the books of the Prophets were produced from a higher level of divine inspiration than the books of the Hagiographa. However, R. Hayyim held that the difference between the Prophets and the Hagiographa is that the divine inspiration in the Prophets was originally intended to be spoken, and only later was written down. On the other hand, the divinely inspired books of the Hagiographa were originally intended to be written down. Thus, the difference between the Prophets and the Hagiographa has nothing to do with levels of prophetic inspiration.

This view of R. Hayyim is recorded in a number of different places, including by his son, R. Velvel.[15] R. Hershel Schachter also quotes this opinion from the Rav, who was passing on what his father, R. Moses, reported. Here is the passage in R. Schachter’s Nefesh ha-Rav, p. 240.

This entire passage is copied, word for word, in R. Gershon Eisenberger’s Otzar ha-Yediot Asifat Gershon, p. 411. But following a “tradition” that has now become somewhat popular in certain circles, Nefesh ha-Rav is not mentioned by name. [ספר אחד [Instead it is referred to as 16 Returning to the passage from R. Soloveitchik quoted by R. Reichman, it is also of interest that R. Hayyim is quoted as saying that there is no point in calling attention to contradictions between the Mishneh Torah and the Guide. No reason is given for this, but no doubt it is because the works had different purposes, and this can explain different, even contradictory, formulations.

Regarding the Hazon Ish, in my book I assumed that he, and a number of other scholars who explained Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:7 similar to him (including R. Ahron Soloveichik, Parah Mateh Aharon, Sefer Mada, p. 194[17]), never saw what Maimonides wrote in Guide 1:36 where he explains why an honest error in matters relating to principles of faith does not change one’s fate. As mentioned already, R. Kafih states that these words were written in response to Rabad’s criticism inHilkhot Teshuvah 3:7, where he states: “Why has he [Maimonides] called such a person a heretic? There are many people greater than and superior to him who adhere to such a belief on the basis of what they have seen in verses of Scripture and even more in the words of those aggadot which corrupt right opinion about religious matters.”[18]

I now believe that while it is certainly likely that some of the others I mention in my book had not seen theGuide , I would not say this about the Hazon Ish. Benjamin Brown has reasonably claimed that formulations in the Hazon Ish’s writings show that he was influenced by theGuide .[19] R. Yehoshua Enbal has harshly criticized Brown’s assertion that there was significant influence of the Guide on the Hazon Ish, but Enbal does not deny that the Hazon Ish knew the Guide.[20] It is reported that th Hazon Ish cited R. Moses Alashkar that Maimonides expressed regret about having “published” the Guide, and that if the work hadn’t already been spread so far, he would have removed it from circulation.[21] (This statement is not found in R. Alashkar’s works.) It seems to me that only one who had at least some idea of Maimonides’ philosophy, and why it could be viewed as problematic, would feel it necessary to identify with such an idea.

Can we point to any specific examples of influence of the Guide on the Hazon Ish? This is something that needs to be investigated and I am not prepared to offer an opinion on the matter. I would just note that R. Moshe Zuriel claims that a passage in the Hazon Ish about Divine Providence has its origin in Maimonides words in the Guide.[22]

2. Earlier in the post I discuss the Hazon Ish’s letter,Kovetz Iggerot1:15, which may be the most famous of all of the Hazon Ish’s letters. I also provide an image from the actual handwritten letter. For this I thank Mrs. Hassia Yehuda who graciously allowed me to take pictures of this and the other letters I will discuss.

Mrs. Yehuda is the widow of Rabbi Dr. Zvi Yehuda (1926-2014). Yehuda was a very close student of the Hazon Ish from 1941 until the early 1950s. During some periods he learned with him almost every day for 2-3 hours, and the Hazon Ish became a father-like figure to him. The letter in Kovetz Iggerot 1:15 was sent to Yehuda, and this is what Yehuda himself wrote about this letter (published here for the first time).

As with another close student of the Hazon Ish, Chaim Grade, Yehuda chose a different path than what his teacher would have preferred: He enlisted in the IDF, attended university, and became part of the Religious Zionist world.

Here is a picture that you can find on the internet.

From the Hebrew Wikipedia page for the Hazon Ish we learn the picture was taken in Ramat ha-Sharon when the Hazon Ish was visting a yeshiva ketanah there and testing the students. The man to the right of the Hazon Ish is R. Elijah Dessler. The young man to the right of R. Dessler is Yehuda. The man on the far left is R. Shmuel Rozovsky. Here is another picture from the same event where you can see R. Rozovsky clearly. Here is a picture of Yehuda from much later in life. The letters of the Hazon Ish to Yehuda are important as they present us with his responses to a curious young man who started to question things. We are not dealing with someone like Chaim Grade who would throw out traditional Judaism entirely. Rather, Yehuda was beginning to open himself to a more liberal type of Orthodoxy, one which valued academic studies and engaging with the outside world. Yehuda later taught Mishnah on Israel Radio and collaborated with Pinhas Kehati in writing the famous Mishnah booklets. In these booklets Yehuda’s role was acknowledged, but when the booklets were later incorporated into Kehati’s published volumes unfortunately there was no longer any acknowledgment. After coming to the United States, Yehuda completed his doctorate at Yeshiva University and his dissertation is titled “The Two Mekhiltot on the Hebrew Slave”.[23]

In Brown’s book on the Hazon Ish, he quotes from a lengthy interview with Yehuda which was included as an appendix to Brown’s doctoral dissertation. With the approval of Brown, I have uploaded Yehuda’s very interesting interview here. You can also listen to Yehuda being interviewed about the Hazon Ish at Torah in Motion here. Yehuda also published two articles about the Hazon Ish inTradition .[24]

Because the published version of the Hazon Ish’s letters does not reveal who they were sent to, people have no idea that Yehuda was the recipient of a number of important letters that are often cited. The earliest of the letters from the Hazon Ish to Yehuda is 1:41. According to Yehuda (in unpublished comments on the Hazon Ish’s letters to him), this letter is from 1944. Here we get a glimpse of the strong connection between the Hazon Ish and Yehuda, as the Hazon Ish ends the The content of the letter is .הדו”ש הדבוק באהבתך letter with also of interest as the Hazon Ish writes:

רב שלומים, מאד הנני מתענין לדעת משלומך, וחידה סתומה היא בעיני, שלא התראית עמדי טרם עזבך עירנו, ומה קרה אשר הכאיב לבבך הטוב, אשר מנעך משפיכת רוחך? ואשר מהרת לברוח. לא אוכל להאמין שתעזוב את התורה, כי נפשך קשורה בה בחביון נשמתך ואצילות נפשך העדינה, נא אל תכחד ממני דבר, והודיעני הכל

The Hazon Ish had apparently heard that Yehuda was going to abandon full-time Torah study. He was disappointed with this information and asked Yehuda to explain what was going on.

Yehuda replied to the Hazon Ish and this led to the Hazon Ish’s next letter to Yehuda, which is found inKovetz Iggerot 1:42. In this letter the Hazon Ish offers guidance to Yehuda, designed to keep him on what today we would call the haredi path:

הריני מאחל לך שתהא דעתך נוחה מחכמתך בתורה, ואל יוסף כח מנגד להדריך מנוחתך, ולנדנד איתן מושבך, שים בסלע קנך, ושמה בסתר המדרגה, הוי שקוד ללמוד תורה, וראה חיים שתחת השמש אין לו יתרון אך למעלה מן השמש יש לו יתרון

Kovetz Iggerot 1:19 was also sent to Yehuda, and it was written after the letters already mentioned. In this letter the Hazon Ish deals with Yehuda’s choice to leave the yeshiva world:

באמת לא מצאתי את המסקנא כדרך הנכונה, אך בידעי שאי אפשר לאכף עליך לעשות נגד רצונך הטבעי . . . לא הרהבתי בנפשי להרבות דברים בשבח הישיבה . . . ואולי תבוא שעה מוצלחת ועבר עליך רוח ממרום בבחינת יעבור עלי מה! ותכיר ישיבתך בישיבה להיותר מתאימה לנפשך ולמשאה בחזות הכל

Kovetz Iggerot 1:14 is the last of the fourteen letters the Hazon Ish sent to Yehuda. This was written when Yehuda’s life choice had been made and the Hazon Ish recognized that his pleas to Yehuda to remain in the yeshiva world had gone unanswered. We see in this letter the Hazon Ish’s great love for Yehuda together with his great disappointment that his dear student had chosen a different path for his life. I don’t think there is another published letter from the Hazon Ish where he writes with such emotion. It is a tribute to Yehuda’s memory that the world can see how the Hazon Ish loved him, and I am happy to be able to reveal who the addressee of this letter is, as over the years many people have wondered about this, and sections of this letter have often been reprinted.

Here is some of what the Hazon Ish wrote to Yehuda:

רב הרגלי לערוך את החיים בודאות גמורה של י”ג העיקרים שעם ישראל עליהם נטעו הקנו לי אהבת התורה בלי מצרים. עשיר אני גם באהבת זולתי, וביחוד לצעיר מצוין בכשרונות, ולב מבין. צעיר השוקד על התורה מלבב אותי וצודד את נפשי, וזכרונו ממלא את כל עולמי, ונפשי קשורה בו בעבותות אהבה בל ינתקו

בראותי בך מפנה פתאומי, אשר כפי שתארתיו, מובנו לבכר החיים של השוק על החיים של התורה אשר בישרון מלך, נפגשתי במאורע רציני בלתי רגיל, והייתי צריך להבליג יום יום על גודל הכאב, ולא יכולתי להשתחרר מרב היגון, הבלתי נשכח כל היום. מצד אחד הייתי מתפלל על תשובתך ומצד השני היה מתגבר עלי היאוש, ובאהבת האדם את עצמו הייתי מסתפק אולי צריך להשתדל להשכיח את כל העבר, ולומר וי לי חסרון כיס, ומצד שלישי אהבתי אליך לא נתנני מנוחה. אבל אורך הזמן שעזבתני עזיבה גמורה ואין לך שום חפץ בי, הכריע הכף לפנות אל השכחה שתעמוד בי בעת צוקה, ומה כבד עלי שבאת לעורר אהבה ישנה, אשר תאלצני להאמין בתקוות משעשעות, אבל כח היאוש אינו רוצה להרפות ידו, ועוד נשאר בלבי, כמובן . . . [הנקודות במקור] אבל בערך אולי תבין מצבי. הכותב בכאב לב חפץ באשרו

The letters of the Hazon Ish to Yehuda have recently been donated to the National Library of Israel. See here.

3. In previous posts I discussed how letters from the Rabbi Isaac Unna archive formerly kept at Bar-Ilan University were being sold at auction. The final shoe has now dropped as what appears to be the remaining items in the archive are now up for auction. The lot is described as follows: “Large Archive Of C. 350 Documents And Letters To, And Accumulated By, RABBI ISAK UNNA Concerning The Campaign To Protect Kosher Slaughter (Shechitah) In Germany.” You can see it here. Thus ends this disgraceful saga in which the family donated numerous historically important documents to Bar-Ilan to be preserved in an archive for scholars to use, and instead these items ended up being sold to the highest bidder.

4. For a while I have been fascinated by the over-the-top language in various charity appeals. It is not enough to stress the importance of the cause, but people feel that they need to speak about how the giver will benefit as well. Furthermore, all sorts of phony stories about “yeshuos” are included in these appeals. However, I don’t recall ever seeing such a blatant falsehood as what appeared right before Purim here in an appeal from the Vaad Harabanim fund. This is the text of the appeal.

Group Of Frum Men Travelling To Dangerous Arab Territory

Thursday 25th of February 2021 07:01:23 AM

A hand-selected group of talmidei chachamim arrived in Iran from Israel this morning, sent on an important mission by Rav Chaim Kanievsky himself. Rav Kanievsky sent the emissaries to pray at the tombs of Mordechai & Esther on behalf of all those who donate to Vaad HaRabbanim’s matanos l’evyonim campaign.

The tomb has been preserved against all odds by Iranian Jews for centuries, despite attempts and even threats by the government to destroy it. The group of travellers runs considerable safety risk appearing externally Jewish and carrying Israeli passports through the hostile Arab country. They do it all for the sake of the hundreds of widows, orphans, and talmidei chachamim who are turning to Vaad HaRabbanim for help.

Funds collected will be distributed to poor people on the day of Purim, in keeping with the observance of the mitzvah of matanos l’evyonim.

Names are being accepted for the prayer list at the tomb for the next few days only. Where to begin? First of all, Iran is not an Arab country. Second, Israeli passport holders are not allowed into Iran. Quite apart from this, think about the idiocy of this appeal. They expect the reader to believe that in the midst of Covid, with Ben Gurion Airport closed, a group of Israeli talmidei chachamim flew to Iran of all places. And we are also expected to believe that R. Chaim Kanievsky sent these talmidei chachamim to Iran. Anyone who did a little research would have also learned that the tomb was closed because of Covid and even Iranian Jews could not go there.

The story is so obviously phony that I wonder how anyone could so brazenly actually post it. And yet, as with all these ridiculous stories, some people appear to have fallen for it. On the page that you donate here it tells us that $7799 was raised for this idiotic appeal. On this page the appeal begins dramatically: “Right now, a plane full of talmidei chachamim is headed to Iran on a special mission from Rav Chaim Kanievsky himself.” It would have been bad enough had the appeal said that one or two people are going to Iran, but a “plane full”! Of course, if there was actually a group of talmidei chachamim traveling to Iran then the cost of this junket would be more than the $7799 raised, so the snake oil salesman who prepares the next phony appeal might consider the fact that people donating to charity would prefer that it actually go to the poor, not to fund a group of people going on a trip.

* * * * * * * *

[1] R. Elhanan Wasserman, Kovetz Ma’amarim (Jerusalem, 2006), p. 11. R. Shimshon Pinkus, Nefesh Shimshon: Be-Inyanei Emunah, p. 99, notes that there are those who have claimed that R. Hayyim’s statement is not to be taken literally, and that he too agrees that one who does not know any better is not to be regarded as a heretic. R. Pinkus responds as follows to this distortion of R. Hayyim’s view: כפי שקיבלתי את הדברים מבית בריסק – הגר”ח התכוון כפשוטו ממש! יהודי החסר את ידיעת עיקרי האמונה – אף שלא באשמתו – אינו מחובר לאמונת ישראל. וכשאין דבר המחבר אותו לנצחיות .הרוחנית, מציאותו מנותקת ואין לו חלק לעולם הבא

[2] See his edition of the Guide of the Perplexed, 1:36, n. 37.

[3] R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik discusses the unwitting heretic in Shiurei Ha-Grid: Tefillin, ST”M Tzitzit, p. 84 and ibid., note 7:

בשחיטה, שדין פסול מומר מיוסד על ההשוואה לעכו”ם, אין אנו פוסלים את כל אלו שמומרותם לא בקעה ועלתה מתוך מעשה איסור מיוחד. ובנוגע לאיסורים מסוימים הגורמים למומרות, אנו יודעים כי רק שבת, עבודה זרה ואפיקורסות מחדשים פסול כזה. ברם בסת”ם, שלגביהם גם אפיקורס בשוגג פסול משום שאיננו מאמין, אף על פי שלא חטא, מכל מקום אין הפסול תלוי בחטא, כי אם במצב הגברא ובחלות שמו. מאמין בקדושת התורה כשר, ואילו אינו מאמין פסול . . . אמנם, באפיקורס בשוגג לא חל שם רשע כל כך, שהרי איננו כופר במזיד, ומכל מקום נקרא אפיקורס, ומהווה חלות מיוחדת בגברא, אף על פי שאינה מושרשת במעשה עברה זדוני

[4] See his letter in myIggerot Malkhei Rabbanan, pp. 286-287. [5] Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, vol. 4, p. 452. [6] Teshuvot ha-Rambam, ed. Blau, vol. 2, no. 264. R. Joseph Karo, Kesef Mishneh, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 2:5 and Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:14, did not have Maimonides’ responsum and thus offered a different suggestion. [7] She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Even ha-Ezer, no. 148. [8] The proper transliteration is kofer ba-ikar (or ikkar) as .not a sheva ב there is a kamatz under the [9] In his commentary to Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:7, R. Kafih writes:

כל “האומר” שהזכיר רבנו בהלכות הללו אינה סתם אמירה ודבור, אלא מי שהוא בדעה וסברא שכך הוא הדבר [10] Le-Dofkei Teshuvah, p. 168. [11] Emunah Shelemah, p. 158. Others who deal with the issue include R. Yitzhak Hecht, Sha’arei Kodesh, vol. 3, pp. 212-213, and R. Mordechai Movshovitz, Shalmei Mordechai, vol. 1, p. 4. R. Movshovitz writes:

וצריך לומר דלאו בדווקא נקט אומר אז חשוב מין, אלא כל שאומר רק במחשבה, הרי הוא עובר דהרי הוא כופר בעיקר

[12] Ma’aseh Nissim, ed Kreisel (Jerusalem, 2000), p. 160. [13] See also R. Shimon Herschler, Gishmei Berakhah p. 495 (included in Herschler, Seh la-Bayit: Hiddushim u-Derushim al ha-Moadim [London, n.d.], who quotes Zalman Levine, the son of R. Hayyim Avraham Dov Ber Levine, the famous Malach, that his father studied the Guide of the Perplexed with R. Hayyim. Despite his father’s extremism, Zalman attended RIETS and shaved his beard. See Chaim Dalfin,Chabad and Gedolim II (Brooklyn, 2021), p. 155 n. 61. Although it is generally assumed that the title “Malach” was given to the elder R. Levine because of his piety, Dalfin quotes a report that the term was coined “to humiliate those individuals who joined Rabbi Haim Dovber Levine. The sentiment was that they put themselves on a pedestal making themselves ‘holier than thou'”. Habad Portraits (Brooklyn, 2015), vol. 3, p. 54 n. 89. [14] “Ha-Tefillah be-Aspaklaryat ha-Rambam,”Yeshurun 9 (2001), p. 658. See similarly R. Moshe Yitzhak Roberts in his edition of R. Moses Trani,Beit Elokim: Sha’ar ha- Tefilah (Lakewood, 2008), section Kiryat Moshe, p. 269. [15] Hiddushei Rabbenu ha-Griz ha-Levi, Menahot 30a. [16] In the past I have referred to this phenomenon, and another example was recently mentioned by R. Yaacov Sasson in the Seforim Blog here. [17] On this page R. Soloveichik also points to what he sees as a contradiction between how the Rambam regards unwitting heretics in Hilkhot Teshuvah and his position in Hilkhot Mamrim regarding people brought up in Karaite society, a matter already discussed in this post. He writes אבל לכאורה זה סותר מה שכתב הרמב”ם בפ”ג מהל’ ממרים ה”ג שהצדוקים והקראים שנתגדלו וחונכו ע”י הוריהם להיות כופרים בתורה שבעל פה יש להם דין של תינוקות שנשבו ויש להם חלק לעולם הבא

In the copy of Parah Mateh Aharon on Otzar haChochma the words I have underlined are also underlined, and the following comment has been added:

פרי המצאת המחבר, ובר”מ שם ליתא (!) ולפי”ז אזדא כל תמיהת הרהמ”ח

The unknown author correctly notes that in Hilkhot Mamrim the Rambam never says that people brought up in Karaite society, who are unwitting heretics, have a share in the World to Come. [18] Translation in Isadore Twersky,Rabad of Posquières (Cambridge, MA, 1962), p. 282. [19] Ha-Hazon Ish (Jerusalem, 2010), pp. 171-172. [20] Yeshurun 29 (2013), p. 938. [21] Pe’er ha-Dor, vol. 4, p. 150. [22] Le-Sha’ah u-le-Dorot, vol. 1, p. 283. means “a measure”, yet why should the מכילתא The word [23] halakhic midrash be given this title? Isaac Baer Levinsohn, Beit Yehudah (Vilna, 1858), vol. 2, p. 48, suggests but in the popular ,מגילתא that the work was actually called without ג as מכילתא pronunciation came to be called withoutdagesh a. This כ a dagesh sounded a lot like without adagesh can still be heard among ג pronunciation of Middle Eastern Jews. Levinsohn, ibid., who is discussing halakhic midrash, also points out that Wolf Heidenheim, in his ספרא machzor for Shavuot in Yetziv Pitgam, vocalizes the words as Safra ve-Safrin, instead ofSifra ve-Sifrin. The וספרין words are also vocalized this way in Shlomo Tal’sRinat Yisrael machzor.

Yet as Levinsohn points out, this would mean “writer and Heidenheim was, of course, a great .סופר וסופרים– ”writers scholar (and Tal was also quite learned), so it doesn’t make sense that this is simply a mistake. Does anyone know of a ?should be read as Safra and not Sifra ספרא source that [24] “Hazon Ish on the Future of the State of Israel,” Tradition 18 (Summer 1979), pp. 111-117, “Hazon Ish on Textual Criticism and Halakhah,” ibid. (Summer 1980), pp. 172-180.

An Unpublished 1966 Memorandum from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan Answers Questions on Jewish Theology

An Unpublished 1966 Memorandum from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan Answers Questions on Jewish Theology

Marc B. Shapiro and Menachem Butler

Professor Marc B. Shapiro holds the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Chair in Judaic Studies at the University of Scranton, and is the author of many books on Jewish history and theology. He is a frequent contributor at the Seforim blog.

Mr. Menachem Butler is Program Fellow for Jewish Legal Studies at The Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard Law School. He is an Editor at Tablet Magazine and a Co-Editor at the Seforim Blog.

Over the last ten years Professor Alan Brill has writtena series of blogposts, as well as a recent scholarly article on the perennially interesting, yet historically mysterious, rabbinic theologian, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (1934-1983).[1] It was from these posts that many have learned about what Kaplan was doing before he burst onto the wider Jewish literary scene in the early 1970s through his writings and public lectures. He passed away in 1983 at the age of 48.[2]

Rabbi Aryeh (Leonard M.) Kaplan was born in the Bronx in 1934, and studied at Mesivta Torah Vodaath in New York, and at the Mirrer Yeshiva in New York and in Jerusalem. In 1953, 20-year- old Aryeh Kaplan joined the group of students assembled by Rabbi Simcha Wasserman under the guidance of Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky to establish a yeshiva in Los Angeles,[3] and three years later in 1956 received his rabbinic ordination (Yoreh Yoreh, Yadin Yadin) from Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Finkel of the Mirrer Yeshiva of Jerusalem, and from the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel. After receiving his ordination, Aryeh Kaplan began his undergraduate studies and, in 1961, earned a B.A. in physics from the University of Louisville, and two years later, an M.S. degree in Physics from the University of Maryland, in 1963. While studying towards his undergraduate degree, Aryeh Kaplan taught elementary school at the pluralistic Eliahu Academy in Louisville, and corresponded with Rabbi Moshe Feinstein about some of the challenges that he encountered.[4] He then worked for four years as a Nuclear Physicist at the National Bureau of Statistics in Washington DC.

In February 1965, Rabbi Kaplan and his wife and their two small children moved to Mason City, Iowa, where he was invited to serve as a pulpit rabbi at Adas Israel Synagogue, a non- Orthodox congregation with forty member families. It would be his first pulpit. He remained at that pulpit until July 1966. During his time in Mason City, Rabbi Kaplan and his wife were very active in all aspects of their synagogue activities. Rabbi Kaplan led services and delivered a sermon each week at the Friday Night Service at Adas Israel Synagogue, hosted a Talmud Torah and taught about Jewish tradition to the youth in the community. He was a member of the National Conference on Christians and Jews, and regularly hosted visiting religious groups to the synagogue and participated in interfaith meetings and on panels alongside religious leaders of other faiths. In all of his delivered remarks, Rabbi Kaplan would type out each sermon prior to its delivery and maintain copies of these addresses within his personal archives; to date, these sermons have not yet been published.

It was during Rabbi Kaplan’s time in Mason City that he authored a fascinating eleven-page-typescript memorandum, dated February 22, 1966, that, thanks to the research discovery of Menachem Butler, we are privileged to share with the readers of The Seforim Blog in the Appendix to this essay.[5]

Kaplan was responding to questions sent out by the B’nai B’rith Adult Jewish Education bureau in Washington DC on matters of basic Jewish theology.[6] We see from the letter that like many other rabbis who were serving in frontier communities, Kaplan maintained a camaraderie with those among the non-Jewish clergy. He was even a member of the “Ministerial Association,” and together with his wife was “founder and chairman of the local chapter of Ministerial Wives.” As one who often hosted non-Jewish groups at the synagogue, Kaplan was well equipped to place Jewish concepts and practices within a context that would make sense for Christians, and this is clearly seen in how he formulates his answers in the letter.

Although Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s memorandum is self-explanatory, there are a few points of theological interest that are worth calling attention to:

1. Right at the beginning, Kaplan notes that Jews have no official dogmas, and that in many cases Jewish opinions vary widely.

2. Kaplan states unequivocally that Maimonides does not believe in a literal resurrection. In support of this statement he cites Guide 2:27. If all we had were the Commentary on the Mishnah and the Guide, it would make sense to assume that when Maimonides refers to the Resurrection of the Dead that he intends immortality, not literal resurrection. Even the Mishneh Torah can be read this way, and Rabad, in his note onHilkhot Teshuvah 8:2, criticizes Maimonides in this regard: “The words of this man appear to me to be similar to one who says that there is no resurrection for bodies, but only for souls.” Furthermore, inHilkhot Teshuvah 3:6, in speaking of the heretics who have no share in והכופרים בתחית המתים:the World to Come, Maimonides writes Those who deny the Resurrection and the coming“ ,וביאת הגואל of the [messianic] redeemer.” Throughout his works Maimonides is clear that the ultimate reward is the spiritual World to Come. So how could he not mention among the heretics those who deny the World to Come, and only mention those who deny the Resurrection? It appeared obvious to many that when Maimonides wrote “resurrection of the dead” what he really meant is the spiritual “World to Come.”

As noted, if the works mentioned in the previous paragraph were all we had, then one would have good reason to conclude that for Maimonides resurrection of the dead means nothing other than the World to Come. Yet it is precisely because people came to this interpretation that Maimonides wrote his famous Letter on Resurrection in which he states emphatically that he indeed believes in a literal resurrection of the dead, after which the dead will die again and enjoy the spiritual World to Come. It is true that some have not been convinced by the Letter on Resurrection and see it as an work letter that does not give us Maimonides’ true view, but such an approach means that one is accepting a significant level of esotericism in interpreting Maimonides, as we are not now concerned with a passage here or there but with an entire letter that one must assume was only written for the masses. Since Kaplan ignores what Maimonides says in his Letter on Resurrection, I think we must conclude that, at least when he wrote this letter, he did not regard it as reflecting Maimonides’ authentic view.[7] In Kaplan’s later works, there is no hint of such an approach to Maimonides.[8]

3. In discussing Jesus, Kaplan writes: “In this light, we can even regard the miracles ascribed to Jesus to be true, without undermining our own faith, since his message was not to the Jews at all.”[9]

APPENDIX:

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan: Response to “Questions Christians Ask Jews” (1966)

[INSERT IMAGES 1-13]

Notes:

[1] See Alan Brill, “Aryeh Kaplan’s Quest for the Lost Jewish Traditions of Science, Psychology and Prophecy,” in Brian Ogren, ed., Kabbalah in America: Ancient Lore in the New World (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 211-232, available here. See also Tzvi Langermann, “‘Sefer Yesira,’ the Story of a Text in Search of Commentary,” Tablet Magazine (18 October 2017), available here. [2] A complete biographical portrait of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan remains a scholarly desideratum.

For appreciations of his writings, see “Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan: A Tribute,” in The Aryeh Kaplan Reader: The Gift He Left Behind (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1983), 13-17; Pinchas Stolper, “Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan z”l: An Appreciation,” Ten Da’at, vol. 1, no. 2 (Spring 1987): 8-9; Baruch Rabinowitz, “Annotated Bibliography of the Writings of Aryeh Kaplan, Part 1,” Ten Da’at, vol. 1, no. 2 (Spring 1987): 9-10; Baruch Rabinowitz, “Annotated Bibliography of the Writings of Aryeh Kaplan, Part 2,” Ten Da’at, vol. 2, no. 1 (Fall 1987): 21-22; and Pinchas Stolper, “Preface,” in Aryeh Kaplan, Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1993), ix-xi, among other writings. [3] See Nosson Scherman, “Rabbi Mendel Weinbach zt”l and The Malbim,” in A Memorial Tribute to Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, zt”l (Jerusalem: Ohr Sameyach, 2014), 13-14, availablehere ; as well as Nissan Wolpin, “The Yeshiva Comes to Melrose,”The Jewish Horizon (March 1954): 16-17. [4] See responsum by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein as published in Shu”t Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim, vol. 1 (New York: Noble Book Press, 1959), 159 (no. 98), dated 13 July 1955. Discovery of additional correspondences between Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan during those years would be of great scholarly interest and of immense historical value. [5] Menachem Butler is also preparing for publication the typescript text of a sermon (“If This Springs From G*D…”) that Rabbi Kaplan delivered the previous month in January 1966, and where he reveals details about a conversation that he had with Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Los Alamos Project and father of the Atom Bomb. [6] Menachem Butler writes two interesting details that, though beyond the narrow scope of this essay, are nonetheless of historical worthiness to consider when reading this memorandum:

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s memorandum of February 1966 was written several months *prior* to the famous symposium of “The State of Jewish Belief:” hosted by Commentary in August 1966, and republished shortly-thereafter under the different title The Condition of Jewish Belief: A Symposium Compiled by the Editors of Commentary Magazine (New York: Macmillan, 1966), and reprinted more than two decades later in The Condition of Jewish Belief (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1988). One wonders how Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan might have responded to the five questions sent by Commentary to 38 rabbis and scholars from around North America.

Returning to questions submitted by B’nai B’rith, it should be noted that the 21 questions were composed by Rabbi Morris Adler on behalf of the B’nai B’rith Adult Jewish Education bureau, a commission that he chaired from 1963-1966, and that he was murdered several weeks after the memorandum was submitted by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. It is for this reason that I believe that these responses had not been published.

The circumstances of Rabbi Adler’s assassination are that a gunman shot him multiple times during Shabbat morning services in front of hundreds of his congregants at his synagogue in Michigan. Rabbi Adler passed away from his wounds sustained in the attack nearly a month later. For a brief bibliographical portrait, see Pamela S. Nadell,Conservative Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), 31-32; and for a full book-length account of the episode, see T.V. LoCicero,Murder in the Synagogue (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1970), as well as his followup volume in T.V. LoCicero, Squelched: The Suppression of Murder in the Synagogue (New York: TLC Media, 2012), available to be ordered here. [7] For brief discussion, see Isaiah Sonne, “A Scrutiny of the Charges of Forgery against Maimonides’ ‘Letter on Resurrection’,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. 21 (1952): 101-117; see also Jacob I. Dienstag, “Maimonides’ ‘Treatise on Resurrection’ – A Bibliography of Editions, Translations, and Studies, Revised Edition,” in Jacob I. Dienstag, ed., Eschatology in Maimonidean Thought: Messianism, Resurrection, and the World to Come (New York: Ktav, 1983), 226-241, available here. [8] See Aryeh Kaplan, Maimonides’ Principles: Fundamentals of Jewish Faith (New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth, 1984), Aryeh Kaplan, Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1993), among other publications. [9] The notion that in the past non-Jews have performed miracles much like the Jewish prophets needs further analysis, which Marc B. Shapiro will attempt in his forthcoming book on Rav Kook. As well, in Toledot Yeshu Jesus is described as performing miracles, but this is explained by Jesus having made use of God’s holy name. Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 3

Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 3

Marc B. Shapiro

Continued from here

1. In the last post I wrote: “R. Hayyim Soloveitchik is reported to have said that if the messianic era will bring even one Jewish death, then he doesn’t want it, and if we had a choice in the matter the halakhah would require us to reject the Messiah in such a circumstance.” A perspective quite different than that of R. Hayyim was offered by R. Menahem Mendel of Rimanov. He thought that it would be good if Jews, even many Jews, were killed during Napoleon’s war against Russia, as he believed that this loss of life would bring the redemption.[1]

ואמר כי לדעתו טוב שישפכו דם ישראל ומפריסטיק עד רימנוב ילכו עד ארכבותיהם בדם ישראל כדי שיהי’ הקץ לגאולתנו

R. Moshe Sternbuch has an interesting passage, the upshot of which is that we shouldn’t be so anxious for the Messiah to come, as from at least one perspective, namely, the reward given those who observe the Torah in the pre-messianic era, it is better for us without the Messiah.[2]

וקבלה שמעתי שכמה צדיקים וקדושי עליון לפני פטירתם אמרו כשיעלו למרום לא ינוחו אלא יתחננו ויפצירו שמשיח יבוא ונזכה כבר לגאולה, ובאו אח”כ לתלמידיהם בחלום וגילו שבעולם האמת רואים את הכל אחרת, כשרואים את השכר הגדול הגנוז לעולמים למי ששומר אמונים כראוי לתורה ומצוות בסוף הגלות בזמן הסתר תוך הסתר, אינו [!] מפציר כ”כ לביאת המשיח שאז לא יהא כבר נסיונות ושכר רב, וכ”ש בני תורה בזמנינו שהם כצבא ה’, שכר כפול ומכופל

There are a few more things about the Messiah that I could not include in the last post. I mentioned reasons why rabbinic leaders offered dates for the Messiah’s arrival even though the Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b, states: “Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the end (i.e., the Messiah’s arrival).” I neglected to quote the even stronger passage in Derekh Eretz Rabbah, ch. 11:

רבי יוסי אומר הנותן את הקץ אין לו חלק לעולם הבא

An interesting perspective is suggested by R. Isaac Abarbanel who claims that the opposition to calculating the date of the Messiah was only directed against those who do it by astrological means. However, the talmudic sages did not oppose those who calculate the end by using biblical texts. He also adds that this lack of opposition is only when those who offer predictions are clear that their predictions are not absolute.[3]

I mentioned the concept of Messiah ben Joseph. It is worth noting that Samuel Feigenzohn argues that any passage in rabbinic literature that mentions Messiah ben Joseph, such as Sukkah 52a-b, is a heretical insertion by the early Christians and refers to Jesus (son of Joseph)![4]

Regarding R. Akiva and Bar Kokhba, it is significant that R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz writes that R. Akiva declared Bar Kokhba the Messiah, not because he really believed this – although presumably he had hope that it might be the case – but in order to give strength to the Jewish people, so that they not despair in the face of all their difficulties. In doing so, R. Akiva was following in the path of earlier sages and even prophets who also proclaimed that the Redemption was near even though they did not believe this, or at least were not certain of this. R. Eybeschuetz even sees the rabbinic obligation to observe certain agricultural laws in parts of the Diaspora as part of this plan to keep Jews believing in the soon-to-come Redemption.[5]

ואמר במדרש [איכה פ”א נד] קראתי למאהבי המה רמוני, הם נביאים שתקנו תרומה וחלה בבבל, וכי חייב חוץ לארץ בתרומה, אלא שרמוני. והקשה היפה ענף, ודאי שאמרו להם כי מהתורה פטור רק הם תקנוהו, כי ח”ו לומר להם דין שקר על דבר שמהתורה . . פטור, ולהורות שלא כהלכה, ועל כן תפוג תורה, וכמה מכשולים יבואו על ידי כך, ולאין ספק שאמרו להם שהוא רק חומרא וגזירה שלהם, וא”כ מה . . . רמוני, ומה ערמה יש בזה

אבל הענין, כי אילו ידעו ישראל ההולכים בגולה שיהיה קץ כל כך ארוך, וישבו זמן רב כזה בעוונותינו הרבים בגולה, היו מאבדים עצמם לדעת לרוב השבר, והיה נאבד שארית יעקב, ובפרט בזמן השמדות, בעו”ה לא היו אוזרים חיל כל כך לעמוד בנסיון. ולכך התחכמו תמיד לקרב הקץ, לומר חזו דאתא, חזו דאתא, ובזה חזקו ידים רפות וברכים כושלות אמצו. ותמיד בבוא עקא וגזירא לישראל, תלו אותו בחבלי משיח לומר, הנה מלכנו יבא ויושיענו. ולכך רבי עקיבא תיכף אחר חורבן התחיל לומר משיח על בן כוזיבא וכדומה, כולם כדי לחזק ומבלי להכניע לבבות בני ישראל. ולכך נסתם ונסתר הקץ, שלא ידעו אריכות .הגלות

ועל זה צווח ירמיה (ירמיה יג, יז) במסתרים תבכה נפשי, וכוונתו על קץ שהוא נסתר כל כך עד שלבא לפומא לא גליא, על זה תבכה נפשי, כי זהו לאות שיהיה לזמן ארוך למאוד מאד. והנה לכך הנביאים וחכמי קדם התחכמו לתקוע בלבב ישראל כי קרובה ישועת ה’ לבוא, ובל יתייאשו מן רחמים, ולכך תקנו תרומות ומעשרות בחוץ לארץ באומרם הטעם, מחר ישובו לארץ ישראל ויאמרו כמו שאכלנו בחוץ לארץ בלי תרומה כן בארץ ישראל נאכל בלי תרומה, ושם חיוב גמור, ולכך תקנו אף בחוץ לארץ, והרגל נעשה טבע, וזהו אם הגאולה מהר מהר, אבל אם היא לזמנים ארוכים, ויעברו קרוב לב’ אלפים שנה, מה צורך לתיקון הזה, הלא דורי דורות לא יצטרכו לזה, והנח לחכמים שיהיו בדור אחרון, ואם כן ברואים ישראל שתיקנו כך, ישפטו לאות אמת כי תהיה .מהר הגאולה, וזו היתה עורמת נביאים וחכמים

וזהו אמרו, קראתי למאהבי המה רמוני, כי תקנו תרומות ומעשרות בחוץ לארץ, שאחשוב שישועה תהיה מהר, ובעו”ה עברו דורי דורות, ואין קול .ישועה

In terms of hoping for the Messiah’s arrival, R. Moses Sofer makes a fascinating point. He claims that to pray for the Messiah to come shows a lack of faith, because God has already promised that we will be redeemed. Therefore, he says that one should pray that the Messiah come speedily as this is something extra that has not been promised.[6]

אע”פ שבטוחים אנחנו בביאת המשיח והמתפלל עליו הוא מחסרון אמונה אבל מ”מ יתפלל שימהר ויחיש במהרה בימינו

Once the Messiah arrives, he stills needs to be accepted by the people. Thus, R. Yaakov Kamenetsky stated that the Messiah will have to be a real Torah scholar so that the Litvaks accept him, he will have to pray with enthusiasm so the hasidim accept him, he will have to fight against the evildoers so the zealots accept him, and he will have to rebuild the Land of Israel and work on its behalf so the Religious Zionists accept him.[7]

Let me make another point about the Messiah. The Jerusalem Talmud, Kilayim 9:3 states:

רבי מאיר הוה אידמך ליה באסייא אמר אימורין לבני ארעא דישראל הא משיחכון דידכון

ArtScroll translates:

R’ Meir was dying in Asia. He said [to those surrounding him], “Tell the residents of Eretz Yisrael, ‘This your great one [who has passed away here. Please assist in bringing him to Eretz Yisrael for burial].’”

The first thing I should mention is that there should have been a note on the word “Asia,” as most people who see this word this think about territory such as Russia or China. However, as Jastrow points out, when the word appears in rabbinic literature it usually refers to what we call Asia Minor, which is today part of Turkey.[8] Interestingly, Jastrow himself, following Adolphe Neubauer, assumes that in this case what the Talmud refers to is a town called Essa, east of the Sea of Galilee.[9] However, the commentators, both traditional and academic, generally agree that the Talmud here refers to Asia Minor.

הא משיחכון The last part of the sentence has R. Meir saying What does this mean? The literal translation is “This .דידכון is your Messiah.” Is it possible that R. Meir would refer to himself this way? ArtScroll thinks not and in its note justifies its translation as follows: is used sometimes in the sense of authority משיחה The term and greatness [and not anointment] (Rashi to Exodus 29:29, from Sifri, Korach §2). That seems to be its sense here.

ArtScroll’s approach is found in the standard commentaries to the Yerushalmi, including that of R. Hayyim Kanievsky, but other approaches have also been suggested.[10]

2. Returning to the passage from R. Hayyim quoted at the beginning of this post, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik had a different perspective than his grandfather.[11] Here is what he writes in Kol Dodi Dofek, available here

Second, the knock of the Beloved was heard on the battlefield. The tiny defense forces of ‎‎[the ‎State of] Israel defeated the mighty Arab armies. The miracle of “the many delivered into ‎the ‎hands of the few” materialized before our eyes, and an even greater miracle happened! ‎God ‎hardened the heart of Ishmael and commanded him to go into battle against the State of ‎Israel. ‎Had the Arabs not declared war on Israel and instead supported the Partition Plan, the State ‎of ‎Israel would have remained without Jerusalem, without a major portion of the Galilee, ‎and ‎without some areas of the Negev. R. Soloveitchik sees it as a positive thing that God hardened the hearts of the Arabs so that they went to war against Israel, allowing Israel to conquer more territory than it was given in the Partition Plan. Yet this war brought about many deaths, so wouldn’t R. Hayyim say, “How can we see this as a good thing, and a miracle no less, that God ‘hardened the heart of Ishmael’?”

In a talk after the Six Day War, R. Soloveitchik offers what appears to be a different perspective than what I just quoted, as he stresses the importance of human life over territory, including the Western Wall. The following appears on the Mesora.org website here and was originally posted here.[12] I have underlined the crucial words for the purposes of this post.

Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik on Territorial Compromise

[Translation of a five-minute segment of the Rav’s 1967 Teshuva drasha (although the drasha was summarized in “Al Hateshuva”, this portion never appeared. From Arnold Lustiger)

I don’t intend here to engage in politics, but this is a matter that has weighed heavily upon me since last June. I am very unqualified to assess the extent of the deliverance that the Ribono Shel Olam accomplished on behalf of Klal Yisrael and the Jewish victory over those who hate Israel. But in my opinion, the greatest deliverance, and the greatest miracle, is simply that He saved the population of Israel from total annihilation. Don’t forget that the Arabs were Hitler’s students, Amalek, and in regard to the Arabs there is a Mitzvah of utterly blotting out Amalek’s memory. Today, they are Hitler, they want to uproot the Jewish people, and it is possible that Russia is together with them in this regard, so the status of Amalek falls upon Russia as well. The blood congeals when one considers what would have happened to the Yishuv, to the hundreds of thousands of religious Jews, of gedolei Yisrael, or to all the Jews in Israel for that matter — “there is no difference” — all Jews are Jews. This is the greatest salvation — but also that the State itself was saved. Because even if the population would remain alive, but if God forbid the State of Israel would fall, there would be a wave of assimilation and apostasy in America as well as in all Western countries. In England I heard that Rothschild said that Israel’s victory saved Judaism in France. He is 100% correct — this was better articulated by him than many Rabbis in Israel regarding the ultimate significance of the victory.

But one thing I want to say. These reasons constitute the primary salvation behind the Six Day War. Indeed, we rejoice in the [capture of] the Western Wall, in the Cave of the Patriarchs, in Rachel’s tomb. I understand the holiness of the Kotel Hamaarovi. I studied Kodshim since I was a child: Kidsha le’asid lavo, kedushas makom, kedushas mechitzos, lifnei Hashem — these are concepts with which I grew up in the cradle. The Kotel Hamaarovi is very dear, and the Har Habayis is very dear to me: I understand the kedusha perhaps much more than many religious journalists who have written so much about the Kotel Hamaarovi. But we exaggerate its importance. Our Judaism is not a religion of shrines, and it seems from this that it lies in the interests of the Ministry of Religions to institute a [foreign] concept of holy sites in Judaism — a concept we never had.

We indeed have the concept of kedushas mokom, this is the Bais Hamikdash, [but] graves are not mekomos hakedoshim. As important as kivrei tzaddikim are, they are not holy. Perhaps there is a different halacha. To visit kivrei tzaddikim is important, like mekomos hakedoshim. I will tell you a secret — it doesn’t matter under whose jurisdiction the Kotel Hamaarovi lies — whether it is under the Ministry of Parks or under the Ministry of Religions, either way no Jew will disturb the site of the Kotel Hamaarovi. One is indeed on a great spiritual level if he desires to pray at the Kotel Hamaarovi. But many mistakenly believe that the significance of the victory lies more in regaining the Kotel Hamaarovi than the fact that 2 million Jews were saved, and that the Malkhut Yisrael was saved. Because really, a Jew does not need the Kotel Hamaarovi to be lifnei (in front of) Hashem. Naturally, mikdash has a separate kedusha which is lifnei Hashem. But there is a lifnei Hashem which spreads out over the entire world, wherever a Jew does not sin, wherever a Jew learns Torah, wherever a Jew does mitzvos, “minayen sheshnayim yoshvim ve’oskim beTorah hashechinah imahem” — through the entire world.

I want you to understand, I give praise and thanks to the Ribono Shel Olam for liberating the Kotel Hamaarovi and for liberating and for removing all Eretz Yisrael from the Arabs, so that it now belongs to us. But I don’t need to rule whether we should give the West Bank back to the Arabs or not to give the West Bank to the Arabs. We Rabbis should not be involved in decisions regarding the safety and security of the population. These are not merely Halakhic rulings. These decisions are a matter of pikuach nefesh for the entire population. And if the government were to rule that the safety of the population requires that specific territories must be returned, whether I issue a halakhic ruling or not, their decision is the deciding factor.

If pikuach nefesh supersedes all other mitzvos, it supersedes all prohibitions of the Torah, especially pikuach nefesh of the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael. And all the silly statements I read in the newspapers — one journalist says that we must give all the territory back, another says that we must give only some territory back, another releases edicts, strictures and warnings not to give anything back. These Jews are playing with 2 million lives. I will say that as dear as the Kotel Hamaarovi is, the 2 million lives of Jews are more important.[13] We have to negotiate with common sense, as the security of the yishuv requires. What specifically these security requirements are, I don’t know, I don’t understand these things. These decisions require a military perspective, which one must research assiduously. The borders that must be established should be based upon that which will provide more security. It is not a topic appropriate for which rabbis should release statements or for rabbinical conferences.

3. In the last post I mentioned a couple of great rabbis from earlier eras, and how the praise they were offered for mastering the Talmud is nowhere near what is said about great rabbis in more recent years. A few people emailed me with examples of how different rabbis in modern times are praised for having completed Shas twenty or thirty times. R. Kook’s father stated that when his son, R. Abraham Isaac Kook, was in Volozhin he completed 60blatta day be-iyun.[14] Chaim Meiselman, whose videos about seforim can be seen here, called my attention to R. Samuel Darmstadt of Mannheim (died 1782),[15] who is reported to have completed Shas 112 times.[16] But this is nothing compared to what R. Shlomo Lorincz writes about R. Moshe Feinstein. He reports in the name of R. Reuven Feinstein that R. Moshe completed Shas over two hundred times. (R. Reuven denies having said this.) If that is not enough to impress you, he also states that R. Moshe finished Tractate Shabbat every week, and he quotes an unnamed member of R. Moshe’s family who claims to have been at a siyum where R. Moshe completed Shabbat for the thousandth time.[17] One would think that a member of the Kenesset for over thirty years would know enough not to repeat such an obviously ridiculous and impossible story.

4. In June 2018 Yaacov Sasson published a letter, found in the Israel State Archives, from R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik to President Chaim Herzog dealing with R. Meir Kahane. See here. In two later posts it was claimed that this letter is a forgery. See here and here. After careful analysis, I, too, agree that the letter is a forgery. (I also know that had I discovered the letter, I would have been very excited to publish it and would have never considered the possibility of forgery.) Sasson does not mention that the Chaim Herzog archive also contains Herzog’s reply to the Rav upon receipt of the letter. One can only wonder what the Rav’s reaction was when he received this correspondence responding to the forged letter.

I found an interesting letter from Kahane in the Israel State Archives.[18] R. Dov Katz’s reply to Kahane is from December 22, 1954, which means that Kahane’s letter was written when he was 22 years old. Kahane’s letter was not addressed to an individual chief rabbi, but the Chief Rabbinate as a whole. It deals with something he was concerned with his entire life, namely, the place of non-Jews in the State of Israel. In his later years, Kahane was adamant that it was against halakhah for non-Jews to have any political role in Israel, including serving in the Knesset. Here we see that he was not sure about the matter, and wonders if the Meiri’s more liberal view on these sorts of issues should be our guide. It is not surprising that in his response R. Katz dodges the issue. Regarding Kahane, a few days before his November 5, 1990 assassination, he delivered a public lecture at Brandeis University. I uploaded the video to YouTube.

In 1985 Kahane debated Brandeis Hillel Director Rabbi Albert Axelrad. Only a portion of this debate survives, and I have uploaded it to YouTube. For R. Shear Yashuv Cohen’s response to Kahane, referring to him as an am ha-aretz, see here. Among other things he writes:

כל מי שחושב, שאפשר לקחת את הסעיפים מ”משנה-תורה” לרמב”ם ולהפוך אותם לחוק המדינה כמות שהם, בלי להתחשב בנסיבות, הוא לא רק עם- הארץ, הוא יותר מזה, הוא טועה ומטעה את הרבים. משום שהרמב”ם לעצמו היה כותב את הלכותיו בפני המדינה, עם בעיותיה העכשוויות, אחרת מאשר הוא כתב אותן בזמנו. לא שהתורה משתנית, חלילה, אלא המושגים החברתיים הם אחרים ולכן הניסוח של ההלכה מוכרח להיות מחודש. ניסוח של הלכה נצחית צריך להתמודד עם בעיות חדשות שעולות לפני הפוסק. אי אפשר לפסוק היום על סמך ניסוח קדום ומבלי להביא בחשבון את השינויים שחלו מאז ועד היום

4. During the Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur prayers there are times when we prostrate ourselves. Many people use a cloth for this even though technically, if the floor is not stone, there is no need. Where are people supposed to put the cloth, under their head or under their knees? I have looked around and also asked people from a variety of synagogues, including Modern Orthodox, yeshivish, and Hasidic. What I have learned is that while many put the cloth under their head, many also, in all sorts of Orthodox shuls, put it under their knees. In some shuls, almost everyone puts it under their knees.

The ArtScroll Machzors for Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur state the following in Musaf before Alenu (and I have underlined the relevant sentence):

The Torah forbids one to prostrate himself (i.e., with outstretched arms and legs) on a floor of hewn stone (Leviticus 26:1). The Sages forbade complete prostration even on a floor not of hewn stone, and they forbade even kneeling (without outstretched limbs) on a stone floor. Therefore, if the synagogue has a stone floor, one must cover the surface upon which he will kneel (Rama, Orach Chaim 131:8; Mishnah Berurah §40). There are some views, however, that it is preferable to cover the floor no matter what it is made of. This is the source of the general practice to put something on the floor when kneeling, even if the floor is surfaced with linoleum or carpeting.[19]

ArtScroll states that if there is a stone floor then you must cover the surface upon which you kneel. It doesn’t say to cover the surface upon which you place your head. This means that according to ArtScroll the cloth should be under your knees.

Yet this is mistaken, and the sources ArtScroll cites do not support this claim. Rama, Orah Hayyim 131:8 states:

וכן אסור לכל אדם ליפול על פניו בפישוט ידים ורגלים אפילו אם אין שם אבן משכית אבל אם נוטה קצת על צדו מותר אם אין שם אבן משכית וכן יעשו ביו”כ כשנופלין על פניהם אם יציעו שם עשבים כדי להפסיק בין הקרקע וכן נוהגין

The Rama says nothing about covering the surface where you kneel, and neither does the Mishnah Berurah. The point of the Rama is that on Yom Kippur, when you bring your head entirely to the ground – he does not mention doing this on Rosh ha- Shanah – that you need to have something separating between your head and the ground. The Mishnah Berurah, in the section directly after the one referred to by ArtScroll, 131:41, is explicit that the issue is one’s head touching the floor not one’s knees.

ודוקא כשפניו דבוקים בקרקע אבל אם שוחה בתפלה אפי’ יש שם רצפה שרי

A complete discussion of this issue, with the point of correcting the widespread error, is found in R. Elhanan Printz, Avnei Derekh, vol. 4, no. 99.[20]

5. Since theMishnah Berurah just quoted mentions the let me say something about this as well. There is a ,רצפה word common mistake that many readers of Megillat Esther make. From speaking to people, and watching online videos, it seems that at least 75 percent of Ashkenazim who read the Megillah make this mistake. Among Sephardim it is significantly less.

Esther 1:6 reads:

ח֣וּר ׀ כַּרְפַּ֣ס וּתְכֵ֗לֶת אָחוּז֙ בְּחַבְלֵי־ב֣וּץ וְאַרְגָּמָ֔ן עַל־גְּלִ֥ילֵי כֶ֖סֶף וְעַמּ֣וּדֵי שֵׁ֑שׁ מִטּ֣וֹת ׀ זָהָ֣ב וָכֶ֗סֶף עַ֛ל רִֽצְפַ֥ת בַּהַט־וָשֵׁ֖שׁ וְדַ֥ר וְסֹחָֽרֶת

.רִֽצְפַת The fifth word from the end of the sentence reads However, when the Megillah is read this word is usually pronounced as ritzpat. This is a real mistake, the sort that should be corrected. Since it is not pleasant to correct the Megillah reader during the reading, the best thing is to speak to him (or her) beforehand.

The reason this mistake should be corrected is that if you read the word as ritzpat, it is actually a different word, with a different meaning, than the word that appears in the In the Bible, the word for floor or .רִֽצְפַת :Megillah For .פ There is dageshno in the .רִֽצְפָה pavement is example, II Chron. 7:3 reads:

וַיִּכְרְעוּ֩ אַפַּ֨יִם אַ֤רְצָה עַל־הָרִֽצְפָה֙ וַיִּֽשְׁתַּֽחֲו֔וּ means glowing stone or hot ,פ Ritzpah, with a dagesh in the coal. See Isaiah 6:6:

וַיָּ֣עָף אֵלַ֗י אֶחָד֙ מִן־הַשְּׂרָפִ֔ים וּבְיָד֖וֹ רִצְפָּ֑ה בְּמֶ֨לְקַחַ֔יִם לָקַ֖ח מֵעַ֥ל הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ

People make the mistake in reading the Megillah since in modern Hebrew, unlike biblical Hebrew, “floor” isritzpah , ,Eliezer Ben Yehudah in his dictionary .פ with a dagesh in the כטעות) already noted the mistake of Hebrew speakers ,רצפה .s.v when saying רצפה of פ who put adagesh in the (המדברים “floor”. Languages change so today we would not say that this is a mistake, but when reading from the Megillah on Purim it certainly is an error, and one that should be corrected.

Some people who are careful readers see that there is no and therefore read the word in the Megillah פ dagesh in the as ritzfat. However, this is also incorrect. If you look in the Bible you will find that all the times the You .ר appear there is agaya after the רצפת and רצפה words can also see this in the two examples given above. This is a vocalshewa . There צ indicates that the shewa under the are different traditions as to how exactly to pronounce the vocal shewa, but all are in agreement that pronouncing this word as ritzfat is a mistake (though it is not a mistake that needs to be corrected). You can hear the outstandingba’al keriah R. Jeremy Wieder read the verse here.

6. Since the publication of Changing the Immutable, I have discovered many more instances of censorship, almost enough for a volume 2. Readers have also alerted me to a number of examples, and let me now share one that I was recently sent.

In the Ralbag’s commentary on the Torah, for each parashah he Here is .תועלת includes all sorts of lessons under the heading a page from parashat miketz (in the Birkat Moshe edition). In no. 13 Ralbag states that the Torah teaches us to avoid inappropriate sexual relations, which only people lacking in intelligence fall into. He adds that Reuben, who slept with which I guess ,חסר דעת Bilhah, is portrayed in the Torah as a could be translated as “imbecile.” He gives another example of Reuben’s foolishness in that when attempting to reassure Jacob that he would bring Benjamin back to him after taking him down to Egypt, Reuben states: “Thou shalt slay my two sons, if I bring him not to thee.” Ralbag sees this as unbelievable stupidity, since if Jacob were to lose Benjamin, how would he be comforted by killing two of his own grandchildren?

Here is the corresponding page from the workToaliyot ha- Ralbag (Jerusalem, 2006). This volume is a collection of all the Ralbag’s “lessons” from the parashiyot of the Torah. As you can see, lesson no. 13 has been deleted. I am actually surprised that the publisher did not simply renumber the lessons, so people would not realize that no. 13 is missing. The “problem” with what Ralbag wrote is not simply his judgment about Reuben’s intelligence, but that he also understands Reuben to have slept with Bilhah, following the simple meaning of Genesis 35:22 as opposed to the talmudic explanation (Shabbat 55b) that the verse is not to be understood literally.[21]

Once again, we can only wonder where a 21st century editor gets the idea that it is OK for him to censor the writings of one of the great rishonim.

7. In the past, I have shown how material I have posted on the Seforim Blog has appeared in other places, sometimes with acknowledgment and other times without. I also have shown how pictures posted here have become public domain and understandably no one even remembers where they first appeared, and this is indeed the case with all images posted online. Here is another example which I recently came across. In an earlier post I included this picture of myself with the late Rabbi Aharon Felder.

Both The Yeshiva World here and the Keystone-K Kashrus organization here have the following picture of R. Felder on their websites. I am happy that in looking for a picture of R. Felder they thought that the one he took with me was nice enough to use. In a circumstance like this, there is nothing wrong with cropping the picture (unlike, for instance, in pictures of historical significance, like when R. Soloveitchik was removed from a picture with R. Aaron Kotler or the Hafetz Hayyim’s wife was removed from the famous picture of her standing behind her husband).

I had thought that in this post I would discuss R. Mordechai Elefant’s memoir and offer my take on it, but I see that the post is already long enough so I will return to this in the future.

***************

[1] R. Zvi Ezekiel Michaelson, Ateret Menahem, pp. 35b-36a (no. 182). [2] Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, vol. 4, p. 206. [3] Ma’aynei Yeshuah, printed in Abarbanel’s commentary to the Prophets, p. 283. [4] Elbonah shel Torah (Berlin, 1929), pp. 24a-b. See similarly Joseph Judah Leib Sossnitz, Ha-Maor (Warsaw, 1889), p. 103. [5] Ye’arot Devash, vol. 2, Derush 6 (p. 95 in the Jerusalem 1988 edition). See R. Chaim Rapoport, “Shitat ha-‘Ye’arot Devash’ be-Inyan Rabbi Akiva u-Ven Koziva,”Kovetz Divrei Torah 27 (5770), pp. 101-105. The words I have underlined were previously emphasized by R. Rapoport. Elsewhere, R. Eybeschuetz presents a different perspective and states that R. Akiva erred in declaring Bar Kokhba the Messiah. By saying that R. Akiva erred it means that R. Akiva really believed what he said. See Elyasaf Frisch in Ha-Ma’yan 57 (Nisan 5777), pp. 84-85. Because he views R. Eybeschuetz’s opinion as shocking, R. Yaakov Koppel Schwartz suggests that the passage, or at least the section dealing with Bar Kokhba, is not authentic but is either a “mistake” (whatever that is supposed to mean) or was inserted by an unknown heretic. SeeYekev Efraim: Mikhtevei Torah, vol. 5, p. 215.

In discussing R. Akiva’s belief that Bar Kokhba was the Messiah, Maimonides writes Mishneh( Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 11:3):

והוא היה אומר עליו שהוא המלך המשיח ודמה הוא וכל חכמי דורו שהוא המלך המשיח עד שנהרג בעוונות

R. Zvi Yehudah Kook claimed that out of respect Maimonides did with reference to R. Akiva and the otherטעהnot use the word See Yosef Badihi,Yosef .דמה sages. Instead, he used the word Lekah (Jerusalem, 2012), p. 224. See, however, R. Chaim Rapoport, “Be-Inyan Ben Koziva ha-Melekh ve-ha-Lekah Mimenu le-Dorot,” Kovetz Hearot u-Veurim 920 (5766), pp. 11ff., who cites passages from the Mishneh Torah that show that when .טעה it means דמה Maimonides uses the word is worth noting. In the דמה One other point about the word Bible you find this word, but you also find a similar word There is a another word which also has the) .דמם whose root is .and means “to cease”, see e.g., Lamentations 3:49 ,דמה root But I will not deal with it at present). The difference is seen clearly in a verse that we all דמם and דמה between know, as it is a part of the daily prayers (Exodus 15:16):

בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ יִדְּמוּ כָּאָבֶן

As noted .דמם comes from the root ידמו In this verse, the word by R. Seraya Deblitsky, in his haskamah to R. Yehudah Aryeh Gutman, Kelalei Ta’amei ha-Mikra (Brooklyn, 2001), it is vital with a ידמו that theba’al keriah reads the word indicated by the dagesh). The words then) ד vocal shewa on the mean: “By the greatness of thine arm, they are as still as a is read with a silentshewa , it ידמו ,stone.” If, however In that case, the .דמה means that the word comes from the root verse means that the Egyptians “appear like a stone”. Correct is ידמו me if I’m wrong, but it appears clear to me that if read this way that the ba’al keriah should be corrected, as the word has a different meaning than what it should have. [6] Torat Moshe ha-Shalem, vol. 2, p. 66 (parashat Be-Shalah, See R. Yaakov Koppel Schwartz,Likutei .(מה תצעק אלי .s.v Diburim, vol. 3, p. 179. [7] Emet le-Yaakov al Nevi’im u-Ketuvim (Jerusalem, 2015), p. 424 n. 4. [8] Regarding this place, see Michael Guttmann, Mafteah ha- אסיא. .Talmud, vol. 3, s.v 9]] Neubauer, La géographie du Talmud (Paris, 1868), p. 38. [10] See e.g., R. Zechariah Frankel,Darkhei ha- Mishnah (Leipzig, 1859), p. 155 n. 7, who suggests a textual emendation. For other suggestions, see R. Jacob Brill, Mavo ha-Mishnah (Frankfurt, 1876), pp. 162-163; R. Judah Leib Landesberg, Hikrei Lev (Satmar, 1909) vol. 4, p. 44; R. Hayyim Fishel Epstein, Teshuvah Shelemah, vol. 2, Yoreh Deah,no. 15.

R. Elijah ben Solomon ha-Kohen,Mizbah Eliyahu(Izmir, 1867), p. 229b, writes:

שרבי מאיר הכיר בעצמו שאם הדור היה זכאי היה ראוי הוא להיות משיח. וכשמת וראה שלא זכה הדור גילה להם הדבר ומה שגרמו עוונותיהם

Interestingly, in the days of R. Saadiah Gaon there was a Karaite scholar named Hasan ben Mashiah, who generally is Ibn Ezra mentions him in the .בן משיח referred to as simply introduction to his commentary on the Torah. In this -must have been an actual name. The nineteenth משיח case century rabbinic scholar R. Israel Moses Hazan, author משי”ח of Kerakh shel Romi, would occasionally sign his name המשי”ח the letters of his name), but more often he would use) You also find him writing about .(הרב standing for ה the) אמר המשי”ח :himself [11] Although he idealized his grandfather, R. Soloveitchik was not a blind follower. See Zorah Warhaftig, Hamishim Shanah ve-Shanah: Pirkei Zikhronot (Jerusalem, 1998) pp. 100-101, who reports that he was told by R. Soloveitchik that his grandfather made three mistakes: 1. He opposed the new aliyah to Eretz Yisrael, as he was worried that it would lead to a religious decline among the settlers. 2. He did not grasp the significance of Jewish immigration to America. 3. He thought that the religious life of Brisk would not be affected by the societal changes sweeping Europe. [12] See also the recently published letter of the Rav to Prof. Ernst Simon in Yair Kahn and Kalman Neuman, “A Rabbinic Exchange on the Disengagement: A Case Study in R. Aharon Lichtenstein’s Approach to Hilkhot Tsibbur,” Tradition 47 (Winter 2014), pp. 161-162, 185-186, availablehere . [13] The Rav has often been quoted as saying that it if it cost even one life to recapture the Kotel, it was not worth it. [14] See R. Yehoshua Kaniel’s eulogy for R. Kook in Me-Avnei ha-Makom 11 (2000), p. 57. I wonder how many pages a day this amazing kid is doing? At age 11 he already knew the entire Mishnah by heart.

[15] See Isak Unna, Die Lemle Moses Klaus-Stiftung in Mannheim (Frankfurt, 1908), pp. 13-14. [16] Unna, Die Lemle Moses Klaus-Stiftung in Mannheim, p. 63. [17] Shlomo Lorincz, Bi-Mehitzatam shel Gedolei ha-Torah, vol. 2, p. 610. He also reports that R. Moshe reviewed fifty pages of Talmud a day, and that he had asiyum upon completing the Shulhan Arukh for the seven hundredth time. [18] File 8564/4, new call no.: 000i8nt. The file can be seen here. [19] Is this indeed the general practice? In my experience it seems that many people do not put something on the floor if there is a carpet. See also R. Aharon Leib Steinman’s Ke-Ayal Ta’arog be-Inyanei ha-Moadim, p. 423:

הרה”ג רבי דוד הילמן שלח לשאול את רבנו האם בבתי כנסת שהרצפה מעץ צריך לכרוע בהפסק על פניהם או לא, דהרי כל החסרון הוא באבן דמחזי כאבן משכית ולא בעץ. וענה רבנו שבעיר בריסק הרצפה היתה מאבן וע”כ כולם עשו כורעים עם הפסק, אבל במשך השנים יצא לו להתפלל גם בבתי כנסת מעץ ושם רוב האנשים עשו כורעים בלי הפסק מלבד כמה יחידים (מפי נכדו הרה”ג ר’ אשר שטינמן. ועי’ הליכות שלמה תפילה יט, ו [צ”ל ח] שבשטיח מחובר שהוא קבוע המנהג להחמיר, אם כי מעיקר הדין מותר

[20] Regarding ArtScroll, someone I know mentioned that he יתגדל thinks it is surprising that ArtScroll does not have in accord with theMishnah ד with a tzere under the ויתקדש Berurah’s opinion (56:2), or at least mention that this is the opinion of the Mishnah Berurah. As he put it, in yeshivish circles, the Mishnah Berurah is king and ArtScroll comes from that world.

I don’t think it is surprising that they did not change the text (although I would have expected them to note the different vocalization in a note). ArtScroll is producing a siddur for the Jewish community as a whole, and the overwhelming majority of people pronounce the words with In fact, I am sure that there are a .ד a patah under the number of other examples where ArtScroll does not follow the Mishnah Berurah’s opinion. I found one such case: In 8:10 the Mishnah Berurah states that when putting on one’s Tallit, there should shewabe under ,להתעטף בציצית in the blessing Yet ArtScroll places pataha under .בציצית in the word ב the ,which is the standard Ashkenazic practice. In fact ב the other than Tehillat Hashem (Chabad), are there any other ב? current Ashkenazic siddurim that have ashewa under the 21]] For otherrishonim who reject the talmudic reinterpretation of the verse, see Changing the Immutable, p. 5.

Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 2

Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 2 Marc B. Shapiro

Continued from here

1. R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin has a different perspective than what we have seen so far.[1] He rejects the notion that “waiting” for the Messiah means that one must believe that he can come at any second, for the Sages already said that the Messiah will not come at certain times. He writes:[2]

ובעיקר הענין הרביתי בראיות מן הגמרא שחז”ל לא ציפו שהמשיח יבוא בכל עת

Contrary to the Brisker Rav (whom he mentions by name), R. Henkin writes: “There is nothing in the Rambam requiring one to believe that the Messiah is ready to come at any moment.”[3] He claims that the Rambam’s real point is that one should not be at ease with the Messiah not having arrived, but rather one should be upset that he hasn’t yet come. A similar argument was made by R. Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg.[4] Unlike R. Shulzinger (see the previous post), R. Henkin does not find a problem with those who mentioned dates for the redemption (and this includes a few important figures[5]), since he suggests that the dates were never intended to be absolutely certain.

Yet R. Henkin adds that it is clear that the sages who gave dates for the Messiah—even if their suggested dates were not certain— did not that the Messiah would come before the dates they אמונה שלמה have predicted, and they obviously are not to be regarded as heretics. He sees this point as contradictory to the Brisker Rav’s claim (as it is usually understood) that one must hope for and await the Messiah’s arrival every day. R. Henkin’s explanation is certainly not in contradiction to the Rambam’s Principle. If the sages who gave dates for the Messiah did not deny that they could be wrong, and that the Messiah could come at any time, then they were not contradicting the Rambam’s Principle. The only thing they were contradicting is the באמונה version of the Principle in the siddur which adds the words .Yet these words not appear in the Rambam’s formulation .שלמה

R. Henkin adds that it is strange that the Brisker Rav would declare that anyone who does not have his understanding of the Twelfth Principle is a heretic, when his understanding is not explicitly found in the Torah, the Talmud, or the rishonim.[6]

ואפילו לדברי הגרי”ז שצריך להאמין שהנה ממש היום הזה הוא בא וכו’ עכ”ל, מן התימה על האי גאון וצדיק ז”ל להחזיק מי שאינו מאמין כן ככופר כיון שהדבר אינו מבואר לא במקרא ולא בחז”ל ולא בראשונים.

R. Henkin concludes that it is enough to believe that the Messiah will come even if you assume that he will not come today or tomorrow. He also cites his grandfather, R. Joseph Elijah Henkin, that “to wait for the coming of the Messiah” does not mean that you think he is ready to come at any instant.[7]

קושטא דמילתא המאמין באמונה שלמה בביאת המשיח ומחכה לו ומתאווה לבואו קדוש ייאמר לו אף על פי שסובר שלפי מאמרי חז”ל לא יבוא היום או מחר, וכן אמר מו”ז הגה”צ זצלה”ה שלחכות לביאת המשיח אין פירושו שעומד לבוא בכל רגע וכן עמא דבר.

In support of R. Henkin, we can cite R. Yohanan ben Torta, who when R. Akiva declared that Bar Kokhba was the Messiah, responded as follows: “Akiva, grass will be growing out of your cheeks and the Messiah will still not have come.”[8] As R. Meir Mazuz notes, R. Yohanan ben Torta believed in the concept of the Messiah, but he did not see any chance that the redemption would come in his generation.[9] In other words, he was not “actively waiting” for the Messiah.

R. Menachem Kasher has another approach. He understands Maimonides’ words that one must wait for the Messiah in a negative sense, namely, that if one despairs of the Messiah’s arrival he is in violation of Maimonides’ words, but not that there is a continuous obligation to wait for the Messiah’s arrival.[10] R. Yisrael Weinman also questions the Brisker Rav’s understanding (although he is not certain the Brisker Rav really said it), since according to somerishonim the Messiah cannot come on Shabbat and Yom Tov. He therefore assumes that it is enough to wait for the Messiah to arrive whenever he is able to come.[11]

R. Yaakov Nissan Rosenthal explains that the siddur’s version of Maimonides’ principle, עם כל זה אחכה לו בכל יום שיבוא does not mean that you must believe and expect every day that today is is that בכל יום the day the Messiah will come. Rather, the meaning of every day you must believe in the coming of the Messiah and await his arrival, whenever that will be.[12] He offered an example to illustrate this point: A man’s daughter married and moved to the Diaspora. The father waits every day for his daughter to return to Israel, but on every day he does not expect that all of a sudden he will hear a knock at his door and his daughter is standing there.[13]

אין המאמין מחכה דוקא שלפתע פתאום יבוא האדון אל היכלו באופן ניסי ושיודיעו לו שהיום בא המשיח, אך הוא כן מחכה בכל יום לביאת המשיח

Significantly, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach agreed with R. Rosenthal and didn’t even think this was a hiddush, but rather the simple meaning of R. Rosenthal then tells about how he .אחכה לו בכל יום שיבוא the words was at a meeting with R. Shlomo Zalman and other rabbis, and he presented his understanding. A few of the hasidic rebbes present started screaming that what he said was wrong and in contradiction to one of the Principles of Faith. R. Shlomo Zalman didn’t say a word. After the meeting R. Rosenthal asked R. Shlomo Zalman why he didn’t defend him from the attacks of the hasidic rebbes. R. Shlomo Zalman replied that you shouldn’t start up with Hasidim

עם חסידים לא צריך להתחיל

R. Rosenthal couldn’t recall if the following witticism was said to him by R. Shlomo Zalman or someone else later told it to him: In the We see that the .על הצדיקים ועל החסידים :Amidah we say חסידים goes before צדיקים word

כי לא “מתחילים” עם חסידים

It is noteworthy that according to the Vilna Gaon’s understanding, if the Messiah does not come in a “hastened” fashion (see Sanhedrin 98a), it certainly seems that no one would be able to hope for the Messiah to arrive in Tishrei. The reason I say this is because of how the Vilna Gaon describes the terrifying things that will happen if the Messiah arrives in its “due time,” and this is in Tishrei.[14]

אם חלילה לא יזכו ותהיה “בעתה” ואז אם היתה הגאולה בתשרי לא היה להם תקומה ח”ו ולא היו נשארים חלילה אלא אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה מפני שמדת הדין שולט בתשרי

Also of interest is the report of how R. Jacob Kamenetsky told someone that the Messiah would not be arriving soon. A certain man had been convinced by people in Chabad that the Rebbe would soon reveal himself as the Messiah, and this had led him to start observing Shabbat. However, R. Kamenetsky thought that it was important to uproot the man’s belief that the Messiah would soon be here, as he worried about the negative consequences to the man’s Judaism when the Messiah did not arrive as he had been expecting.[15]

אל תאמין להם. משיח, לצערנו, עדיין אינו עומד לבוא . . . [רי”ק הסביר לתלמידיו] מה שהשיגו אנשי חב”ד הוא הישג מדומה, שיצא שכרו בהפסדו. בעתיד הקרוב, כשיראה יהודי זה שההבטחה לא נתמלאה והמשיח לא הגיע, יתחיל שוב לחלל את השבת. יתרה מכך, עד עכשיו הוא האמין בתמימות מוחלטת בביאת המשיח, ואם יתאכזב, יפסיד את אחד היסודות החשובים ביהדות – האמונה בביאת המשיח.

Based on this, I think we can say that R. Kamenetsky did not expect the Messiah to arrive in the near future.

Some Jewish traditions speak of a great war that will occur before the coming of the Messiah, and even of the death of Messiah ben Joseph in this war.[16] Other traditions see this great war as occurring after the coming of the Messiah. R. Hayyim Soloveitchik is reported to have said that if the messianic era will bring even one Jewish death, then he doesn’t want it, and if we had a choice in the matter the halakhah would require us to reject the Messiah in such a circumstance. I wonder, therefore, if R. Hayyim was really able to look forward to the messianic era, knowing that its arrival would bring the possibility of Jewish death.

Here is how R. Hayyim is quoted by R. Dov Katz.[17]

מספרים בשמו של ר חיים סולובייצ’יק מבריסק, הגאון של הדור הקודם, שבימי המלחמה כשנפלו כל כך הרבה חללים בחזית המלחמה וסבלו כל כך הרבה, אמרו לו פעם בשיחה, שלוא היתה לכל הפחות מביאה המלחמה הזו את הגאולה, כי אז היה אולי כדאי הדבר. גער בהם ר’ חיים ואמר להם: “תדחינה מאות גאולות ואל תפול נפש אחת מישראל, כי אם היתה באה שאלה לפנינו שאם על ידי קרבן של אדם אחד יבא המשיח, בודאי שהיינו פוסקים שלא יבוא המשיח ולא תמות נפש אחת, כי הלא פיקוח נפש דוחה כל התורה כולה, ואף המשיח והגאולה בכלל.”

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this report. It is very much in line with what we know about R. Hayyim’s views both about the value of human life, and also about the downplaying of messianism. R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik stated: “To R. Chaim, a good chidush in Torah and Kodshim – if I may say so, perhaps I shouldn’t say it – was more important than the whole beis ha-mikdash, in his intuitive weighing.”[18] R. Soloveitchik had some hesitations about what he said, because he knew it would be shocking to people, but he said it anyway. R. David Holzer, in his note on this sentence, writes: “Obviously, the Rav is speaking derech guzma, just to express the concept.” Even if the Rav is exaggerating his point is clear, namely, that Torah study is much more important than what will take place in the future Temple.

I think the Rav’s point is that anIsh Halakhah is simply not interested in the messianic era in any practical way. He believes it will come (and thus fulfills Maimonides’ requirement), but he doesn’t focus on it, for he has everything he needs in a non-messianic world, namely, the study of Torah and the fulfillment of mitzvot. As for the study of Torah, as the Rav said, creating a chiddush about the laws of sacrifices is more important than the sacrifices themselves, because at the end of the day Torah study is the focus of our lives, not sacrifices which we have been without the last two thousand years.

Even though I said that I have no reason to doubt what is reported in the name of R. Hayyim, and this report is also cited by R. Ovadiah Yosef,[19] I must note that R. Eliyahu Zini completely rejects the reported statement which he sees as absolute nonsense.[20]

טענות אלו דברי תימא גדולים הן. הלא הן סותרות כל מלחמה יזומה, אף כל מלחמת מצוה, וכ”ש מלחמת רשות! ואם נקבל אותן, נצטרך לגזור אומר, שגם כבוש הארץ בזמן יהושע איסור גמור היה, ושהיה עדיף להשאר במדבר כדי לחסוך בחיי יהודים רבים. ואסור להאמין שגדול בישראל אמר דבר כזה, שהרי טענות מרגלים יש כאן, מסוג “ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה אנשי מידות”. ואם נאמץ אותן, עלינו לומר שהיה אף אסור לצאת ממצרים, כי יציאת מצרים הביאה למות דור שלם, ולכן היה עדיף לדחות אפילו גאולת מצרים!

לכן אסור להאמין לעדות זו. וגדול כר’ חיים מבריסק לא יאמר דברי הבל כאלו ויש כאן הוצאת דיבה על גאון זה, ובפרט שעדות זו מוכחשת ממה שכתב במפורש ר’ חיים עצמו [שלפי ר’ חיים אין דין פיקוח נפש חל בשעת מלחמה], והבאנו אותה כבר פעמיים לעיל

I don’t believe that R. Zini’s words, which come from a right-wing religious Zionist perspective, create any difficulty in believing that which R. Hayyim is quoted as saying, namely, given the choice between a Messiah which will require the loss of human life or no Messiah, that he would prefers the latter. What about R. Zini’s point that according to what is reported in R. Hayyim’s name, that human life stands above all, that the concept of milhemet mitzvah makes no sense? I think the answer is clear, namely, that R. Hayyim obviously acknowledged that in a halakhically valid war, and certainly in a war commanded by God (such as to conquer the Land of Israel), human life will be lost and we cannot have “conscientious objection.” (It is, however, hard to imagine how R. Hayyim would have been able to support a milhemet reshut.)

Yet there is no halakhic imperative to bring the Messiah, and if given a choice between the Messiah with loss of life or no Messiah, R. Hayyim would forego the Messiah. Given the choice between a Jewish state that will require the loss of life—even a state that functions according to halakhah—or no state, R. Hayyim would forego the state. This was one of the two reasons for the anti-Zionism of R. Isaac Zev Soloveitchik, namely, that the actions of the Zionists endangered Jewish life. His other reason was that he believed that the Zionists would persecute religious Jews in a Zionist controlled state.

To be continued

Excursus The old question is why did rabbis give dates for the Messiah’s arrival when the Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b, states: “Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the end (i.e., the Messiah’s arrival).” Maimonides actually mentions a family tradition as to when prophecy will be renewed, and this will precede the messianic era. See Iggerot ha-Rambam, ed. Sheilat, vol. 1, pp. 152-153.

On the second day of the Ten Days of Penitence, one of the selihot we read (Tohelet Yisrael) states:

חשבון אחר חשבון עמך יפתור

“Thy people interpret reckoning after reckoning.” This refers to predicted dates of the Messiah’s arrival. R. Zev Wolf Leiter sees this as a proof that there is no prohibition in offering dates for the Messiah as long as one does not lose faith in the messianic principle if the projected date comes without the Messiah’s arrival. See his Kevod Melakhim, Hilkhot Melakhim 12:2, found here and on Otzar haChochma.

In agreement with R. Leiter’s perspective, R. Menasheh Grossberg, Shevet Menasheh, no. 46, also suggests that there is no problem in giving dates of the Messiah’s arrival, and what the Talmud is criticizing is those who, if the Messiah does not come on the predicted arrival date, would then deny the principle of messianic redemption. His proof for this interpretation is the passage that comes directly after what I quoted above from Sanhedrin 97b: “For they would say, since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he has not come, he will never come.” Thus, we see that the Talmud itself explains the reason for the curse of those who predict the Messiah’s arrival, and it is because if the Messiah does not arrive at the predicted date it will lead to heresy in that people will completely deny the principle of the Messiah. R. Grossberg goes so far as to write:

הנה הראשונים שהיו כמלאכים או כבני אדם מאמינים באמונה שלמה להם ראוי לחשוב בקצין ולחקור באמונה

R. Joseph Kafih states that the reason why sages gave dates for the Messiah’s arrival, or in Maimonides’ case the renewal of prophecy, was only in order to strengthen the people, that they not despair of redemption. In other words, the sages themselves did not take the dates seriously, as the point of publicizing this information was for an entirely different purpose. In R. Kafih’s words:

לא פעל רבינו כפי ההלכה לכתחילה, אלא בכדי לעודד את העם

See Teshuvot ha-Rav Yosef Kafih le-Talmido Tamir Ratzon (Kiryat Ono, 2018), p. 389.

This is the very same reason Maimonides gives for R. Saadiah’s messianic calculations. Maimonides writes as follows in his Letter to Yemen (Abraham Halkin and David Hartman,Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides [Philadelphia, 1985]), p. 116):

As for Rabbi Saadiah’s calculations, there are extenuating circumstances for them though he knew they were disallowed. For the Jews of his time were perplexed and misguided. The divine religion might have disappeared had he not encouraged the pusillanimous, and diffused, disseminated, and propagated by word of mouth and the pen a knowledge of its underlying principles. He believed, in all earnestness, that by means of the messianic calculations he would inspire the masses with hope to the Truth. Verily all his deeds were for the sake of heaven. Consequently, in view of the probity of his motives, which we have disclosed, one must not decry him for his messianic computations.

R. Meir Leibush Malbim also provided dates for the messianic era. He believed that the initial stage of the Redemption would be between 1868 and 1913. The Temple would be rebuilt in 1925, sacrifices would begin to be offered in 1928, and the resurrection of the dead would take place in 2203. See Noah Rosenbloom, Ha-Malbim (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 159-160.

R. Judah Leib Maimon reports that his father asked the Malbim how he could offer such dates in opposition to the talmudic statement against this. He replied that the proscription against offering dates was only in the early years after the destruction of the Temple, when the path until the end was still long. However, as we are now close to the end of the Exile it is permitted to give dates. See Maimon,Le-Ma’an Tziyon le Ehesheh (Jerusalem, 1954), p. 19. The same answer in the name of the Malbim is found in R. Yissachar Dov Teichtal, Em ha-Banim Semehah (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 150-151. In both sources, in order to offer a parable explaining his point, the Malbim tells the story of a father and son taking a long journey. At the beginning of the journey, when the son asks if they almost there, the father is annoyed with him. However, after much time on the road, when the father asks the coachman the same question, he explains to his son that now that they have journeyed far the question is appropriate. It is the same with the exile, the Malbim explains. At the beginning, it was improper to offer predictions of its end. However, now that we are almost near the end, it is OK to do so. (In the version of the story told by Maimon, the young son is none other than the Malbim himself, and the answer comes from his father.)

R. Jacob Isaac Horowitz, the Chozeh of Lublin, is quoted as saying that those who, based on hints in the Torah, predicted dates for the Messiah’s arrival were really just offering a strong suggestion to God that it is time for Him to redeem the Jews. This is just like a son does not explicitly tell his father that he is doing something wrong, but instead shows him the Torah source so his father can draw the proper conclusion.

כי עפ”י הלכה באם בן רואה לאב שאינו עושה חלילה כיאות אז משום כיבוד אב לא יוכל לומר לו שאינו עושה כשורה רק החיוב להראות לו הדין בתורה ופוסקים ולומר לו אבא כך כתוב בתורה (עיין יור”ד סימן ר”מ סעיף י”א מש”ס קידושין דף ל”ב) וכיון שאנו רוצים לחות דעתינו לאבינו שבשמים שירחם על בניו ויגאל אותנו בקרוב וכי אין מן היושר כביכול שיסבלו עוד עול גלות לכן צדיק הדורות מחדשים איזה קץ משיח ועושים על זה רמז באיזה פסוק בתנ”ך איך שבשנה זו יבוא משיח צדקינו והוא להראות לאבינו הבורא ית”ש אבא כך כתוב בתורה היינו דבאותו מקום בתוה”ק כתוב שבשנה זו יבוא משיח בב”א

See R. Moshe Menahem Mendel Walden, Or ha-Niflaot, p. 12a, included in Ohel ha-Rabbi (Petrokov, 1913); Mendel Piekarz, Ha-Hanhagah ha- Hasidit (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 190. ******************

2. In the last post I mentioned Elliot Wolfson’s argument that the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s secret teaching is that there will be no physical redeemer, but the messianic redemption is able to occur within each person. A number of people were surprised to hear about this, as there is, I believe, literally not one person in Chabad who accepts this argument. While I do not believe that Wolfson is correct, it is important to note that one does find in Hasidic thought the concept of inner redemption.[21] Although this is not intended to replace the ultimate physical redemption, these Hasidic teachings do turn passages in the Talmud on their head. For instance, R. Meir of Apta asks why we need to pray for redemption if God has promised that he will redeem us. He quotes the Chozeh of Lublin who said that the Talmud, Megillah 16a, mentions that if you repeat a teaching in the name of someone else, you “bring redemption to the world.” The Chozeh points out that this is difficult, as every page of the Talmud has someone repeating a teaching in the name of someone else, and yet the redemption still has not come. The Chozeh replies that the redemption being spoken about is a personal redemption, that one is delivered from his difficult circumstances. Similarly, when we pray for redemption, it is a prayer for personal redemption.[22]

דהנה השי”ת הבטיח לנו לפדותינו ולגאלינו מהגלות המר, ולכאורה יפלא מה צורך להתפלל על הגאולה, ההוא אמר ולא יעשה. אך ששמעתי [!] מרבינו הקדוש מוהרי”י זצללה”ה מלובלין על הגמרא כל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם, והתמיה נשגבה, כי בגמרא מצינו ממש בכל דף שאומר התנא דבר בשם חבירו או בשם רבו, ומדוע עוד לא נושענו מהגלות. ותירץ, כי הבאת הגאולה הוא גאולה פרטית לאיש ישראל ממצוקותיו, כאשר אמרנו, ותקם בעוד לילה שבהגלות יוושעו ישראל ויקומו בהרחבה והרוחה, וע”ז אנו מתפללים, וזה בכלל גאולה

3. In recent months there have been a number of discussions about epidemics in Jewish history and how the rabbis responded. No one has yet cited what the great R. Elijah Klatzkin wrote.[23] You can see this in R. Klatzkin’s Miluim le-Sefer Devar Halakhah (Lublin 1923), pp. 126-128. For some reason, the copy of this book on Otzar haChochma is missing the second half of the book. However, the complete work is available on hebrewbooks.org here.

R. Klatzkin prints an open letter he wrote in 1916 to his community in Lublin, when they were suffering a typhus epidemic. It originally was published in Yiddish and Polish. He obviously thought it was important that his message should be preserved for posterity, and over a hundred years later what he says unfortunately remains relevant to us.

R. Klatzkin tells the community that he has to write to them, rather than speak to them, as due to the danger they can no longer gather together in the synagogue. He mentions that although the government established rules to keep people healthy, nevertheless there are many who are ignoring the laws. (To this I would add, the more things change the more they stay the same.)

R. Klatzkin stresses that the various government rules are also required according to the Torah, and one who violates the rules, which bring danger to him and his neighbors, “his sin is too great to bear.” R. Klatzkin expresses wonder that he needs to warn people about these matters, which relate to their health and the health of their families. What he observed over a hundred years ago has of course repeated itself in our time, when for incomprehensible reasons entire communities simply ignored basic health guidelines which allowed the virus to spread very quickly, leaving a terrible toll.

R. Klatzkin states that he wouldn’t need to warn people to watch over their money, so how is it that people treat their health with less concern than their money? He then turns to the issue of hillul ha- shem, and we see that in his day it was also the case that there were Jews who created a hillul ha-shem in how they responded to the crisis. R. Klatzkin notes that even repentance, Yom Kippur, and personal suffering do not atone for hillul ha-shem.[24] “If we would behave in accordance with the Torah, then we would be a light unto the nations and would sanctify the name of heaven and the honor of the holy Torah.” In R. Klatzkin’s day, one of the reasons for the spread of the epidemic was the unsanitary conditions that the poor lived in, and he concludes his letter by appealing to the wealthy to support the poor so they can improve their living conditions.

In his open letter R. Klatzkin states that he spoke about the issue This refers to .אמ”ש of hillul ha-shem and kiddush ha-shem in his book his responsa Imrei Shefer which appeared in 1896, and he has in mind no. 92 in this book. In this responsum he makes a number of noteworthy points. To begin with, R. Klatzkin makes very clear that when it comes to halakhah there is a great distinction between real idolaters and the nations among whom Jews currently live. He cites the Meiri to back up this position and the entire lengthy responsum is in support of this point.

ורבים טועים ומתעין עצמם לחשוב שכל מה שמבואר בספרים להחמיר בטעות ואונאת אינו יהודי הוא רק מפני איבה ובאמת לא כן הדבר והוא איסור גמור . . . ומזה מבואר דכל מקום שכתוב בטור ושו”ע עכו”ם היינו בדיוק עובדי כוכבים ממש ואינו מדבר כלל מהאומות שבזמנינו המאמינים בהשגחה ושכר ועונש וכמו שמפורש במאירי

This shows that he really means what he says, unlike other works that include a comment at the beginning of the book saying that any time non-Jews are referred to it means idolaters who live in places like India and China. Comments like this were never taken seriously. In fact, the very existence of these comments was said by R. Moshe Feinstein to be a proof, contrary to R. Solomon Luria, that one is allowed to alter Torah teachings in the face of danger.[25]

R. Klatzkin begins his responsum by calling attention to a passage in R. Joseph Albo, Sefer ha-Ikkarim 3:25, where Albo states that one is not allowed to charge interest to a ger toshav. The problem is that this contradicts an explicit Mishnah, Bava Metzia 5:6, as well as the talmudic explanation of this Mishnah, Bava Metzia 71a.[26] R. Klatzkin offers an original explanation that when the Talmud says that you can charge a ger toshav interest this refers to one who is wealthy, but if a ger toshav is poor, and he needs the money to survive, then he is not to be charged interest. Also significant is R. Klatzkin’s point that in this matter, and similar things, contemporary non-Jews who observe the Noahide laws fall into the category ofger toshav. He assumes that Christians are not to be regarded as idolaters, so they too fall into this category.

R. Klatzkin discusses R. Moses Isserles’ responsum in which he tries to find some justification for the practice in Moravia to drink non- Jewish wine.[26] R. Klatzkin suggests that this leniency arose due to theological reasons, because most of the inhabitants of Moravia were followers of Jan Hus (i.e., Hussites) who rejected many Catholic practices, including the veneration of images. In other words, they were distant from any “idolatrous” practices, and thus there was a reason in people’s minds why the prohibition on non-Jewish wine should not apply to them.

R. Klatzkin also takes up the issue of darkhei shalom. He cites the Talmud and Maimonides that when it comes to non-Jews – even idolaters – the Sages said to bury their dead, visit their sick, and support their poor because ofdarkhei shalom. After mentioning this, Maimonides also quotes Psalms 145:9: “The Lord is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works,” and Proverbs 3:17: “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”[28] R. does not מפני דרכי שלום Klatzkin derives from this that the expression mean that Jews behave a certain way to avoid non-Jewish enmity. Rather, it means that by Jews acquiring the trait of mercy for all people, there will be peace on Israel. He cites the Jerusalem Talmud, Eruvin 7:9, which states:

מפני מה מערבין בחצרות מפני דרכי שלום

In this passage it is obvious that darkhei shalom means something positive, to create neighborliness. R. Klatzkin claims that this is exactly what the expression means when dealing with non-Jews, He states that when Jews extend themselves for non-Jews in the ways mentioned by the Talmud, there will be real peace – in a positive sense – between Jews and non-Jews.[29]

ומוכח מזה דמ”ש מפני דרכי שלום, אין הכוונה שלא ינטרו שנאה לישראל, אלא דקאמר שעי”ז שידבקו ישראל במדת החמלה ורחמים על כל יציר נוצר, יהיה שלום לישראל . . . הרי דפירוש מפני דרכי שלום, היינו שעי”ז אוהבין זא”ז ונעשה ביניהם שלום אמת, וה”נ הפירוש שיהא שלום אמת עם העמים, כאשר ידבקו ללכת בדרכי ה’ המרחם על כל מעשיו

******************

3. In my last post I had a quiz with two questions. A number of people got one of the questions correct, but only a few individuals got them both correct. I won’t mention any names because one of those who answered correctly asked to remain anonymous.

The first question was: Where in Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud does he say that a certain individual knew all of Shas?

Rashi writes about R. Kalonymus ben ,ולערב .In Beitzah 24b s.v Shabbetai of Rome who had journeyed from Rome to Worms:[30]

גם עתה בא אלי מכתב מגרמיי”ש שבא לשם אדם גדול זקן ויושב בישיבה מן רומא ושמו ר’ קלונימוס ובקי בכל הש”ס

I took this question from R. Shlomo Schneider, author of the responsa volume Divrei Shlomo. In a work that has not yet been published he has a number of “quiz questions,” and in future posts I will cite more of them.

In terms of “knowing Shas,” it is noteworthy that today we hear about different great rabbis who have completed Shas twenty or thirty times, or even more than this. Yet in earlier days we see that the achievements of great rabbis are described in much more limited fashion. R. Joseph Karo’s maggid said to him that he would finish Shas three times, and that was thought to be a great blessing.[31] This was not just the prediction of the maggid, as R. David Conforte quotes the grandson of R. Karo that when his grandfather was on his deathbed he, too, said that he merited to complete the Talmud three times.[32] R. Karo also testified as to how rare it was in his day for anyone to complete the Talmud:[33]

בדורות אלו לא ימצא מי שלמד כל התלמוד כי אם אחד מעיר

Of course, it must be noted that when R. Karo speaks of completing the Talmud he is not referring to daf yomi style, but rather an in-depth study of every page. Just like with have seen with R. Karo, in a letter to R. Betzalel Ashkenazi, the author of Shitah Mekubetzet, R. Moses Galante of Safed (1620-1689) writes that he has finished the Talmud three times.[34]

In describing the unique greatness of his teacher, R. Nissim of Gerona, R. Isaac ben Sheshet states that he was expert in three sedarim of the Talmud. Today, saying this about a leading sage would not be viewed as a compliment, as what about the other three sedarim, is he not also an expert in them? But this is what the Rivash writes.[35]

ה’ צב-אות הותיר לנו שריד דַבָּר אחד לדור הוא מורנו הרב הגדול רבינו נסים נ”ר היה כאחד מהם לדעת טוב טעם ודת בקי בשלשה סדרים ודמו לי’ כמאן דמנחי בכיסתיה ודעתו רחבה מני ים ושכלו זך וישר אין ערוך אליו בכל חכמי ישראל that are שב For the other quiz question, I asked about the letters found after the first and second set of shofar blasts. What is this about? I was going to discuss this matter and present various sources. However, Moshe Babad alerted me to the existence of a comprehensive article that recently appeared on this very topic, and thus there is no need for me to go into any detail. The article is by R. Yehudah Aryeh Markson and appears in the journal Etz Hayyim 30 (Elul 5778), pp. 408-437 (it is not yet on Otzar haChochma). The title of the article is

שב בני שב – לגלגוליו של מנהג קדמון שנשתכח

R. Markson begins by noting that he, like everyone else, simply paid that appears together with tekiat ha-shofar. It שב no mind to the word is that he שב was only after he was asked what the meaning of investigated the matter. This led him to uncovering the story of what used to be a widespread minhag that for some reason simply disappeared and was almost entirely forgotten from Jewish communal memory (with the exception of a few “pure” German minyanim, such as KAJ in Washington Heights).

שב R. Markson mentions various explanations that have been offered for including the incorrect suggestion that it is one of the holy names that you need to have in mind before shofar blowing. Another incorrect is an שב explanation was offered by R. Simhah Bunim of Peshischa that Idiot, blow.” In other words, blow the“ – שוטה בלאז abbreviation for shofar without any special kavvanot and just have in mind to fulfill the mitzvah. (I am sure that R. Simhah Bunim didn’t really think that ”but was only offering a “midrashic שב this is the meaning of understanding. This is probably also the case with those who explain A third incorrect explanation is (.שוואנץ בלאז the letters to mean and is directed to the people to urge them תשובה is related to שב that to do teshuvah. A fourth incorrect explanation mentioned by R. Markson and the meaning is ,שב ועל תעשה as in ,שֵב should be read שב is that that the person who blows the shofar should cease his blowing and wait a bit before resuming the next set of shofar blasts. According to this explanation, the reason for waiting is to give him time for silent prayer or to separate the different groups of shofar blasts. R. Markson records other incorrect explanations as well.

The fourth explanation mentioned in the previous paragraph is closest to the truth, which, as R. Markson shows, has its origin in medieval Ashkenazic minhag where it is first mentioned by Maharil. The and it means “sit”. The one calling ,שֵב should indeed be read שב word out the shofar sounds was telling the blower to sit down between the אבי‘ series of blasts. R. Markson, p. 426 n. 71, refers to Maharil as However, I don’t know on what basis one can .ומייסד מנהג אמירת ה’שב say this, as opposed to assuming that Maharil is simply recording a minhag that was already practiced in his day. After all, as R. Markson notes, R. Meir of Rothenburg records the practice of the shofar blower to sit between the series of blasts, though there is no mention of the .שב shofar blower being told

Why is the person blowing the shofar told to sit? R. Markson presents a variety of explanations such as to show that the three groups of shofar blasts are separate from each other, to show that these blasts are the tekiot di-meyushav, to give the shofar blower a chance to focus on teshuvah or just to rest, or to confuse the Satan.

*************

The Seforim Chatter podcasts are fascinating shows conducted by a skilled interviewer. I think Seforim Blog readers will especially enjoy the show focused on Dan Rabinowitz’s book on the Strashun Library. See here.

On December 24, 2020, 9pm Eastern Time, I will be giving a Zoom class on the topic: “Christmas Eve: Is it a Time for Torah Study?” Those interested can sign up here. Those who are interested in my continuing series of classes can sign up at Torah in Motion here, and you can also download my previous classes on the website. The current series is being placed on YouTube here.

Coming soon:

Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 3

Fighting Over the Rav’s Legacy in the Algemeiner

Response to Criticism, part 4

************* Notes

[1] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, pp. 181ff. [2] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, p. 42. [3] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, p. 182. [4] See R. Yohanan Meir Bechhofer, Even Shetiyah (Ramat Beit Shemesh, 2005), p. 98: ומו”ר זצ”ל חידש כי המלה “חכה”, אין פירושה להמתין, אלא ר”ל לקוות וליחל לבואו. ומה שבא רבינו לומר כאן הוא שכל יהודי חייב להרגיש בחסרון של העדר המשיח, ולקוות וליחל לבואו ולא להתיאש ממנו אף אם יתמהמה, ולא שאנו צריכים להיות ודאים שהוא יבוא בשעה הקרובה

[5] See Excursus. [6] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, p. 182. [7] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, p. 184. [8] Yerushalmi, Ta’anit 4:5 (24a). [9] Bayit Ne’eman, no. 222 (18 Av 5780), p. 2. [10] Ha-Tekufah ha-Gedolah, p. 380. [11] Mishnat Yisrael, p. 416. He concludes that if the Brisker Rav really said that which is attributed to him, then he retracts what he wrote. [12] See, similarly, R. Mordechai Peterfreund, “Nusah Yud Gimmel Ikkarim va-‘Ani Ma’amin,’” Yeshurun 22 (2010), p. 711 (called to my attention by Nochum Shmaryohu Zajac). [13] R. Nahum Stepansky, Ve-Aleihu Lo Yibol, vol. 3, pp. 369-370. [14] Even Shelemah (Jerusalem, 2013) p. 177 (ch. 11). Many vocalize this as Even Shlomo, and I have also done so in the past. However, based on what the editor, R. Samuel Maltzan, writes in the introduction, it is clear that Even Shelemah is correct.

וקראתי שם הספר הזה אבן שלמה על שם ענינו כי הוא אבן שלמה וצדק לפלס בו דרכי העבודה, וגם ע”ש מרן הגר”א ז”ל אשר ממעינות חכמתו שאבתי בששון הדברים הקדושים האלה וכמ”ש בהקדמה לספר פאת השולחן בשם מרן הגר”א ז”ל כי שמו מרומז בתורה בפ’ כי תצא בתיבות אבן שלמה שהוא ראשי תיבות אליהו בן שלמה, וכמו שאל”ף הוא פל”א ונעלם כך תורתו נסתרת ונעלמת, ולכן שמו בהעלם בראשי תיבות.

This is also how the words are transliterated in Russian on the title page of the first edition (Vilna, 1873).

[15] Shlomo Lorincz, Bi-Mehitzatam (Jerusalem, 2008), vol. 2, p. 588. [16] R. Judah Leib Landesberg, Hikrei Lev (Satmar, 1905), vol. 1, p. 67, suggests that the entire tradition of Messiah ben Joseph has been misunderstood, and that it really refers to Bar Kokhba. After his defeat, due to fear of the Romans the Sages did not wish to mention ,משיח בן יוסףhim by name. So instead they referred to Bar Kokhba as which should be understood as “Messiah of the son of Joseph,” and “son of Joseph” refers to R. Akiva, whose father’s name was Joseph. After mentioning this provocative idea, R. Landesberg immediately says that it should be retracted. But this is obviously done so as to prevent him from being attacked for his new idea, since if he really wanted it to be retracted, he would not have published it in the first place.

ויש מן החכמים כמו ר”י בן תורתא היה מקוראי תגר על בר כוכבא עד שאמר לר”ע: עקיבא! יעלה עשבים בלחייך ועדיין משיח לא יבא! אולם ר”ע לא שת לבו ולא השגיח לדבריהם, ובכל עוז עמד למשען לו וקרא עליו: דין הוא מלכא משיחא! ואחרי כי זה ב”כ עלה והצליח שנתיים ימים על במות ההצלחה, רק בהשתדלות ר’ עקיבא “בן יוסף”, נקרא אח”כ בפי חז”ל בשפה הנעלמה, כי יראו באמת לישא שמו על שפתיו מפחד הרומיים – משיח בן יוסף, ר”ל: משיח של “בן יוסף” יען רק ר’ עקיבא בן יוסף גדלוהו ורוממוהו והכתירוהו בכתר משיח – אמנם רק השערה בעלמא הוא התלוי’ בשערה ובדמיון. ועל כגון דא הנני אומר: אל תגעו במשיחי וחלילה לפרש נגד המסורה הטהורה שקודם ביאת המשיח צדקנו יתראה לפניו בהדר גאונו משיח בן יוסף.

[17] Divrei Hagut u-Reut (Jerusalem, 1979), vol. 1, p. 170. [18] The Rav Thinking Aloud, pp. 174-175. [19] Masa Ovadiah, p. 340. [20] Eretz Hemdatenu, p. 131. [21] See e.g., Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York, 1971), pp. 176-202. Regarding hasidic thinkers, Mendel Piekarz, Ha-Hanhagah ha-Hasidit, p. 320, calls attention to the interesting view of R. Shalom Perlow of the Koidanov hasidic dynasty. R. Perlow states that things are better now than they will be in the messianic era, because at present we have free will. Thus, we can perform mitzvot in the proper way, which will not be possible in the messianic era. He also states that the delay in the redemption is to lessen the birth pangs of the Messiah. In other words, it is good for the messianic era to be delayed. This delay also has spiritual benefits for those souls that need atikun . There appears to be some real ambivalence here about the messianic era, and R. Perlow was not interested in “Moshiach now”. See his Shem Aharon (Warsaw, 1910; bound with R. Pinhas of Koretz,Midrash Pinhas he- Hadash), pp. 5-6: הנה המון ישראל נכספים ומתגעגעים לביאת המשיח מצד ההטבה, ובאמת עתה יותר טוב, כי ברוחניות הלא ארז”ל ע”פ אשר תאמר אין לי בהם חפץ אלו ימות המשיח, וכוונתם שתתחלש [!] הבחירה והעיקר הוא הבחירה, ע”כ ארז”ל יפה שעה אחת בתשובה ומעש”ט בעוה”ז מכל חיי העוה”ב, ורבי’ הק’ אמר קודם פטירתו על תורה ומצות קא בכינא, ואם על טובת הגשמיות הלא אם נעיין בדחז”ל התנהגות ביאת המשיח הלא אנשי’ כערכנו תסמר שערות ראשנו, אך באמת אין אנו צריכים להשגיח ע”ע כלל רק צריך לחכות ולצפות לגאולה בשביל שכינתו ית’ וכבוד שמו המחולל, והקב”ה כביכול אינו משגיח על כבוד שמו ומלכותו, ומאחר את הגאולה בשביל טובת ישראל ברוחני וגשמי, כי ידוע מספה”ק שע”י אריכות הגלות ואיחור המשיח יתמעט חבלי משיח, וגם ברוחני ידוע מס”צ אשר הקב”ה חשב מחשבות לבלתי ידח ממנו נידח, ע”כ הקב”ה חס על הנשמות שאינם מתוקנים שיתתקנו [!] קודם ביאת המשיח

Piekarz, Hasidut Polin (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 212, cites R. Israel Friedman of Chortkov, who cited his father, R. David Moses, the founder of the dynasty that the hasidic leaders don’t want the Messiah to come so quickly, as they still have a lot of spiritual work to do. See Ginzei Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1986), vol. 1, p. 167:

אקדים מה ששמעתי מכ”ק אאמו”ר הקדוש זצ”ל, שאמר פעם, אחר הסדר אומרים העולם, משיח כבר היה בא, לולא הצדיקים שאינם מניחים אותו לבוא. נבאו ולא ידעו מה נבאו. דהאמת היא כן, כי הנה כתיב (ש”ב יד, יד) “כי לא ידח ממנו נדח”, וע”כ הצדיקים חסים שאם יבא משיח קודם הבירור האמתי, מה נעשה איפוא עם הנשמות האלה, על כן מאחרים הם את ביאת המשיח, אולי בינתיים יתוקנו כל הנשמות

[22] Or la-Shamayim (Jerusalem, 2003), p. 214 (parashat Be-Hukotai). [23] I also haven’t seen anyone refer to R. Isaac ben Todros (fourteenth century), who wrote a work Be’er Lahai dealing with a plague in Avignon. This was published in Jubelschrift zum Neunzigsten Geburtstag des Dr. L. Zunz (Berlin, 1884), pp. 91-126 (Hebrew section). [24] Regarding hillul ha-shem, R. Menachem Genack has recently written: What we are witnessing in parts of the Orthodox Jewish world today is the greatest desecration of God’s name — chillul Hashem — I have witnessed in my lifetime. Asked by friends outside our community to explain the actions of some within it, I have been at a complete loss. For some reason that I cannot fathom, parts of the Orthodox community today act as if the principle of pikuach nefesh no longer applies and disregard the government regulations enacted to protect their own lives and those of their neighbors.

For R. Mayer’s Twersky’s recent comments about Covid-19 and hillul ha- shem, see here. [25] See Changing the Immutable, p. 42. [26] See also Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Malveh ve-Loveh 5:1. [27] See Changing the Immutable, pp. 81-82. [28] Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 10:12. [29] The same idea is famously expressed by R. Isser Yehudah Unterman, Shevet mi-Yehudah, vol. 3, no. 70. [30] See Avraham Grossman, Hakhmei Ashkenaz ha-Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 348ff. [31] Maggid Meisharim (Petah Tikvah, 2000), p. 182 parashat( Va- Yakhel). [32] Kore ha-Dorot (Modi’in Ilit, 2008), p. 128 (ch. 3). [33] Avkat Rokhel, no. 202. [34] Mikavtzi’el 37 (2011), p. 546. This is how the name of the journal is to be transliterated, and this is also how the Ben Ish is to be pronounced. Yet when the word appears in מקבציאל Hai’s book with a shewa under מקבצאלthe Bible, 2 Sam. 23:20, it is written .not a hirik. See the discussion here ,צ the [35] She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rivash, no. 375.