Mysteries of the Other World: Golems, Demons and Similar Beings in Jewish Thought & History

A recent article begins:

While some Jewish families see Halloween as a pagan holiday that should not be observed, the fact is, Jewish tradition is itself no stranger to the otherworldly, with its own history of golem-makers, sorcerers, and demon wranglers, and throughout the centuries Jews have been as afraid of evil spirits as anyone else

Indeed, for those interested in some of the discussions regarding demon wranglers and golem makers, see Dr. Leiman’s post on “Did a Disciple of the Maharal Create a Golem?” and the post “Ghosts, Demons, Golems, and their Halachik Status.” As well as Dr. Leiman’s comments regarding a story that appeared in De’ah ve-Dibbur regarding the Maharal and his alleged golem and this post.

Review: Minhagei Lita

Minhagei Lita, Menachem Mendel Poliakoff, : 2008, 116 pp.

The author’s stated purpose is to “clarify for present generation the authentic customs of Lithuanian Jewry in prayer and in common Jewish practice” and highlight the true approach and values that form the underpinnings” of those customs. Minhagei Lita at 3. Aside from the difficulty in determining what the author means by “common Jewish practice,” “Torah true approach” this book, unfortunately, has little value. This book, which is really a screed, suffers from numerous problems, which we will highlight below. This book has so many flaws that I was not even going to review it, but it seems to have garnered some media attention and thus we have decided to review the book. The author apparently spent eight years in Telshe in Lithuania, between 1930-38. It does not appear, according the brief biography at the end of the book, that the author went anywhere other than Telshe. See id. at 101-02. He makes no mention of visiting more established and larger Lithuanian cities of Vilna, Kovno, or Mintz for example. Indeed, in his introduction, he provides that he is “not so presumptuous and foolish to claim knowledge of all or even most of the area of Lithuanian avodah.” Id. at 4. But, throughout the book, the author fails to remember this disclaimer. Instead, for example, the author asserts that “the minhag in Lithuania was to beat the Aravos,” id. at 48, or that the neither “in the Telshe Yeshivah or anywhere else in Lithuania,” id. at 50, did they repeat to the two readings of the zekher. How the author knew that these customs were uniform throughout Lithuania is unclear. This is not the only piece of his own advice the author ignores. The author records a conversation where another Lithuanian Jew bemoans the current state of Judaisim and particular its failure “to walk humbly with G[o]d?” Id. at 61 Poliakoff agrees this sentiment but a few pages later states about himself, without irony, that “I am much more of a scholar and more pious than many people in Baltimore who denigrate the eruv.” Id. at 74. Additionally, Poliakoff decides that he can offer his own “novel” solution to solving the agunah problem and dispensing with the second day of Yom Tov. The idea that in one fell swoop he can deal with these weighty issues doesn’t smack of humility. Moreover, in dealing with both of these issues, as well as others in the book, Poliakoff’s lack of awareness of relevant sources is stunning. He seems to think that only with the very recent technological advances is the Yom Tov Sheni issue problematic. Of course, since communication has been improving for hundreds of years, many, many people have raised and dealt with the issue of continuing to keep a second day for Yom Tov. See, for example, J. Katz, Divine Law in Human Hands, Magnes Press: 1998, 255 ff. Perhaps, as Poliakoff appears to still live in Baltimore, which to my knowledge, has no good Judaic library he had no access to these sources. When it comes to agunah, his “novel” solution is annulment. Of course, as anyone who has even the most basic familiarity with the history of the agunah issue knows that this approach has been raised on countless occasions. For a recent comprehensive history, one just needs to read the comprehensive articles in Yeshurun on this topic (many of which are online at Hebrewbooks, and thus, mitigates Polikoff’s unfortunate status as a Baltimorian). Maybe Polikoff will suggest in his next book that his has novel approach to Pesach where he wants to abandon the prohibition against kitnyot. This is not the only example where a better library would have assisted him. He asserts that “one of the new trends today is to pronounce the word for rain in the second brachah of the amidah – gashem. The traditional pronunciation has always been, geshem.” Minhagei Lita, at 22. First, this is not a “new” trend, it was started in the early 1800s. Second, there is much written on this topic that could have clued him in on this. There are at least three books that are entirely devoted to this issue. See, e.g., Hayyim Kraus’s books, Mekhalkhel Hayyim, , 1981 and Ot Hayim, Beni Brak, 1984. Polikoff also asserts that there that is only “recent” is pointing one’s little finger at the torah during the hagbah ceremony. His “proof” that is a custom that has no basis and is a new one is that he “asked a person whom [he] noticed performing this act why [the pointer] did it and from where he learnt it.” The pointer “was unable to find a traditional source for it.” Just to be clear, Poliakoff, based upon one persons failure to elicit a source, proves his point. Rabbi Hayyim Palagei in Lev Chaim, Orach Chaim (167:6) records this custom as does the Yalkut Me’am Lo’ez (Deut. 27:26) records this custom as well as others. I am not suggesting that these sources end the discussion, or if this is an appropriate custom, but merely that the notion that there are no traditional sources is wrong. Then, we to, for lack of a better descriptor, the really silly things that Poliakoff says. For example, he asserts that it is a “misconception” that a mourner should lead the prayers, instead a mourner is only supposed to say kaddish. Minhagei Lita at 32. As an initial matter, this is a highly questionable assertion, but let’s assume he is correct. Based upon this assumption, Poliakoff then goes on to complain that sometimes people have decided to take upon themselves to lead the services not for a dead relative that would render them an avel but a grandfather for example. As they are doing this for hesed they should have priority over an actual avel in leading the prayers. So, according to Poliakoff, if you are leading the prayers in memory of your great uncle Bob then you are somehow doing more hesed than if you are merely leading the prayers for one’s father John who died two weeks ago. Why if for Uncle Bob are you doing a hesed are you not doing it for John? Or we have the especially silly comment since “more than fifty percent of marriages today contracted by the parties themselves end in divorce, we ought to consider whether we would not be better off if we required the consent of the parents to contract a marriage.” Id. at 79. Poliakoff, is quick to offer his own sociological take on why it is current customs and practices don’t conform with his limited experience in Telshe Yeshiva in Lithuania. According to him this was in part brought about by the rise of the ba’al teshuva movement. Id. at 55. I assume the argument is that since ba’al teshuva don’t have their own family customs, they relied too heavily on books, books like the Mishna Berurah, which, according to Poliakoff don’t accurately represent the Lithuanian practice. But, did all ba’al teshuva become religious via the same experiance that Rambam attributes to Abraham? That is, was it based solely on their own introspection, did they not have teachers who were not ba’alei teshuva, teachers who presumably had their own traditions and customs that they could impart to their ba’alei teshuva students? Did these ba’ale teshuva take over all the and shuls and institute their “new” non-traditional customs and force everyone else to follow them? Of course, as Hayyim Soloveichik points out in his own article on this topic, people today may be too willing to rely upon books rather than tradition (ahh what a idyllic world we would have if we all only followed the advice of Fiddler on the Roof) but this suggestion of Poliakoff seems too much of a generalization. For his broader point that people have uncritically accepted certain customs, there is no doubt that he is correct. The fault with his work, however, is that he provides little basis for this criticism other than his own displeasure. To be sure, there are numerous books and articles discussing this phenomenon, indeed, one of his examples, the pronunciation of kaddish was discussed on this site here. And had Poliakoff done even minimal research he could have located similar objections that would have bolstered his understanding of what minhagei lita was comprised of. In all, if one is looking for what the customs were in Telshe, Poliakoff provides some of that and is especially strong when he limits himself to that topic. But, as of late, Telshe as a Yeshiva has been dying a slow death, it is unclear what relevance that will have to most. For a comprehensive work on minhagei lita, however, we will still have to wait for that.

Update: I have learned that this book was never intended to be a presentation of minhagei Lita, Telshe, or any other customs. Instead, the book was written for personal reasons and was not expected to generate such press. Thus, according to representations I received, no halakhic or any other conclusions were to be drawn from this book. The sole conclusion that is excepted is that it is “proper” to kill the messenger.

Some Assorted Comments and a Selection from my Memoir. part 1

Some Assorted Comments and a Selection from my Memoir, part 1 By Marc B. Shapiro 1. Fifty years ago R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg spoke about the fraudulence that was found in the Orthodox world. Unfortunately, matters have gotten much worse since his time. I am not referring to the phony pesakim in the names of great that appear plastered all over Jerusalem, and from there to the internet. Often the damage has been done before the news comes out that the supposed pesak was not actually approved by the rav, but was instead put up by an “askan” or by a member of the rabbi’s “court”. I am also not referring to the fraudulent stories that routinely appear in the hagiographies published by and the like, and were also a feature in the late Jewish Observer. These are pretty harmless, and it is hard to imagine anyone with sophistication being taken in. Finally, I am also not referring to the falsehoods that constantly appear in the Yated Neeman. I think everyone knows that this newspaper is full of lies and in its despicable fashion thinks nothing of attempting to destroy people’s reputations, all because their outlooks are not in accord with whatever Daas Torah Yated is pushing that week.[1] I am referring to something much more pernicious, because the falsehoods are directed towards the intellectuals of the community, and are intended to mislead them. There was a time when in the haredi world a distinction was made between the masses, whom it was permitted to mislead with falsehoods, and the intellectuals who knew the truth and who were part of the “club” that didn’t have to bother with the censorship that is ubiquitous in haredi world. Yet I have recently seen many examples that show that even in the world of the intellectuals, fraudulence has begun to surface. Let me note an example that was recently called to my attention by Rabbi Yitzchak Oratz, and it is most distressing precisely because it is a son who is responsible for the lie. In an issue of the popular journal Or Yisrael, R. Yehudah Heller from London mentioned that the late R. Yerucham Gorelik, a well-known student of R. Velvel of Brisk, had taught at Yeshiva University.[2] Heller used this example to show that one can teach Torah in an institution even if the students’ devotion to Torah study leaves something to be desired. In the latest issue of Or Yisrael (Tishrei, 5770), p. 255, Heller publishes a letter in which he corrects what he had earlier written. He was contacted by Gorelik’s son, R. Mordechai Leib Gorelik. The only thing I know about the younger Gorelik is that he appears to be quite extreme. He published an essay in Or Yisrael attacking the Artscroll Talmud and his reason was simply incredible. He claimed that anything that tries to make the study of Talmud easier is to be condemned. He also argued that Talmud study is not for the masses, but only for the elite. Obviously, the latter don’t need translations. According to Gorelik, if the masses want to study Torah, they can study halakhah or Aggadah and Mussar. If they want to study Talmud, then they must do it the way it used to be studied, with sweat, but they have no place in the beit with their Artscroll crutches.[3] Apparently it bothers Gorelik that his colleagues might think that his father actually taught Talmud at YU. So he told Heller the following, and this is what appears in Or Yisrael: R. Yerucham Gorelik never taught Talmud at YU, and on the contrary, he thought that there was a severe prohibition (issur hamur) in both studying and teaching Talmud at this institution, even on a temporary basis, and even in order “to save” the young people in attendance there. The only subject he ever taught at YU was “hashkafah”. The Sages tell us that “people are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out” (Bekhorot 36b). I don’t think that they would have made this statement if they knew the era we currently live in.[4] Here you have a case where literally thousands of people can testify as to how R. Gorelik served as a at YU for forty years, where you can go back to the old issues of the YU newspapers, the yearbooks, Torah journals etc. and see the truth. Yet because of how this will look in certain extremist circles, especially with regard to people who are far removed from New York and are thus gullible in this matter, R. Gorelik’s son decides to create a fiction. I understand that in his circle the younger Gorelik is embarrassed that his father taught Talmud at YU. I also assume that he found a good heter to lie in this case. After all, it is kavod ha-Torah and the honor of his father’s memory, because God forbid that it be known that R. Gorelik was a Rosh Yeshiva at YU. However, I would only ask, what happened to hakarat ha-tov? YU gave R. Gorelik the opportunity to teach Torah at a high level. It also offered him a parnasah. Without this he, like so many of his colleagues, would have been forced into the hashgachah business, and when this wasn’t enough, to schnorr for money, all in order to put food on the table. This denial of any connection to YU is part of a larger pattern. In my last post I mentioned how R. Poleyeff’s association with the school was erased. Another example is how R. Soloveitchik appears on the title page of one sefer as “Av Beit Din of Boston.” And now R. Gorelik’s biography is outrageously distorted.[5] Yet in the end, it is distressing to realize that the rewriting of history might actually work. In fifty years, when there are no more eyewitnesses alive to testify to R. Gorelik’s shiurim, how many people will deny that he ever taught at YU? Any written record will be rejected as a YU-Haskalah forgery, or something that God miraculously created to test our faith, all in order to avoid the conclusion that an authentic Torah scholar taught at YU.[6] I have no doubt that the editor of Or Yisrael, coming from a world far removed from YU, is unaware of the facts and that is why he permitted this letter to appear. I am certain that he would not knowingly permit a blatant falsehood like this to sully his fine journal. 2. Since I spoke so much about R. Hayyim Soloveitchik in the last two posts, let me add the following: The anonymous Halikhot ha-Grah (Jerusalem, [1996]), p. 4, mentions the famous story recorded by R. Zevin, that in a difficult case of Agunah R. Hayyim asked R. Yitzhak Elhanan’s opinion, but all he wanted was a yes or no answer. As R. Zevin explained, quoting those who were close to R. Hayyim, if R. Yitzhak Elhanan gave his reasoning then R. Hayyim would certainly have found things with which he disagreed, but he knew that in terms of practical halakhah he could rely on R. Yitzhak Elhanan.[7] Halikhot ha-Grah rejects R. Zevin’s explanation. Yet the same story, and explanation, were repeated by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik.[8] In addition, a similar story, this time involving R. Hayyim and R. Simcha Zelig, is found in Uvdot ve-Hangagot le-Veit Brisk, vol. 4, pp. 35-36. Thus, there is no reason to doubt what R. Zevin reports.[9] Mention of Halikhot ha-Grah would not be complete without noting that it takes a good deal of material, without acknowledgment and sometimes word for word, from R. Schachter’s Nefesh ha-Raf. Of course, this too is done in the name of kavod ha-Torah. 3. Many posts on this blog have discussed how we now have entire books on topics concerning which until recent years a few lines sufficed. Haym Soloveitchik also made this point in “Rupture and Reconstruction.” Here is another example, the book Birkat Eitan by R. Eitan Shoshan.

This is a 648 page (!) book devoted to the blessing Asher Yatzar, recited after going to the bathroom. Shoshan has an even larger book devoted to the Shema recited before going to sleep. 4. In a previous post[10] I mentioned that R. Moshe Bick’s brother was the Judaic scholar and communist Abraham Bick (Shauli). Before writing this I confirmed the information, but as we all know, oftentimes such “confirmations” are themselves incorrect. I thank R. Ezra Bick for providing me with the correct information, and the original post has been corrected. R. Moshe and Abraham were actually somewhat distant cousins.[11] Abraham was the son of R. Shaul Bick (and hence the hebraicized last name, Shauli), who was the son of R. Yitzchak Bick, who was the chief rabbi of Providence, RI, in the early 1930’s. R. Yitzchak was the son of R. Simcha Bick, who was rav in Mohiliv, Podolia. R. Simcha Bick had a brother, R. Zvi Aryeh Bick, who was rav in Medzhibush. His son was R. Hayyim Yechiel Mikhel Bick, was also rav in Medzhibush (d. 1889). His son was also named Hayyim Yechiel Mikhel Bick (born a few months after his father’s premature death), and he was rav in Medzhibush from 1910 until 1925, when he came to America. His son was R. Moshe Bick. R. Ezra Bick also reports that after the Second World War, when Abraham Bick was in the U.S. working as an organizer for communist front organizations, he was more or less cut off by his Orthodox cousins in Brooklyn. R. Moshe Bick’s brother, Yeshayah (R. Ezra’s father), was a well-known Mizrachi figure. In his obituary for R. Hayyim Yechiel Mikhel Bick, R. Meir Amsel, the editor ofHa-Maor , mentioned how Yeshayah caused his father much heartache with his Zionist activities.[12] This article greatly hurt R. Moshe Bick and he insisted that Amsel never again mention him or his family in Ha-Maor. In fact, as R. Ezra Bick has pointed out to me, rather than causing his father heartache, R. Hayyim Yechiel actually encouraged Yeshayah in his Zionist activities.

R. Bick’s letter is actually quite fascinating and I give the Amsel family a lot of credit for including it in a recent volume dedicated to R. Meir Amsel. I have never seen this sort of letter included in a memorial volume, as all the material in such works is supposed to honor the subject of the volume. Yet here is a letter that blasts Amsel, and they still included it.[13] They also included a letter from R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg in which he too criticizes Amsel for allowing personal attacks to be published in his journal. It takes a lot of strength for children to publish such letters and they have earned my admiration for doing so. When I first mentioned R. Moshe Bick, I also noted that he was opposed to young people getting married too quickly. He therefore urged that boys and girls go out on a number of dates before deciding to get engaged. Needless to say, the haredi world was furious at this advice. R. Dovid Solomon reported to me the following anecdote: When the Klausenberger Rebbe told R. Bick how opposed he was to the latter’s advice, R. Bick responded: “That’s because you are mesader kidushin at all the marriages. But I am the one who is mesader all the gittin!” 5. In previous postings I gave three examples of errors in R. Charles B. Chavel’s notes to his edition of Nahmanides’ writings. For each of these examples my points were challenged and Chavel was defended. Here is one more example that I don’t think anyone will dispute. In Kitvei ha-Ramban, vol. 1, p. 148, Nahmanides writes:

ובזה אין אנו מודים לספר המדע שאמר שהבורא מנבא בני אדם. :to mean ספר המדע In his note Chavel explains לדבר הידוע, יעללינעק מגיה פה שצ”ל: לרב הידוע. Yet the meaning is obvious that Nahmanides is referring to Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mada, where he explains the nature of prophecy.[14] 5. In 2008 a Torah commentary from R. Joshua Leib Diskin was published. Here is the title page. The book even comes with a super-commentary of sorts. This is completely unnecessary but shows how greatly the editor/publisher values the work. Diskin is a legendary figure and was identified with the more extreme elements of the Jerusalem Ashkenazic community. For this reason he often did not see eye to eye with R. Samuel Salant. Here is a page from this new commentary.

In his comment to Num. 23:22-23, Diskin quotes a book called Ha-Korem. This is a commentary on the Torah and some other books of the Bible by Naphtali Herz Homberg, a leading Maskil who worked for the Austrian government as superintendent of Jewish schools and censor of Jewish books. This is what the Encyclopedia Judaica says about him:

Homberg threatened the rabbis that if they did not adapt themselves to his principles the government would force them to do so. . . . Homberg was ruthless in denouncing to the authorities religious Jews who refused to comply with his requirements, and in applying pressure against them. In his official memoranda he blamed both the rabbis and the Talmud for preventing Jews from fulfilling their civic duties toward the Christian state. . . . Homberg recommended to the authorities that they disband most traditional educational institutions, prohibit use of the Hebrew language, and force the communal bodies to employ only modern teachers. . . In his book Homberg denied the belief in as the chosen people, the Messiah, and the return to Zion, and tried to show the existence of an essential identity between and Christianity. . . . Homberg incurred the nearly universal hatred of his Jewish contemporaries. Incredibly, it is from his commentary that Diskin quoted. The editor didn’t know what Ha-Korem was, but almost immediately after publication someone let him in on the secret. All copies in Israeli seforim stores were then recalled in order that the offending page be “corrected”. I am told that the first printing is now impossible to find in Israel. When I was informed of this story by R. Moshe Tsuriel, I contacted Biegeleisen who fortunately had just received a shipment from Israel, sent out before the books were embargoed. Presumably, my copy will one day be a collector’s item. The one positive thing to be said about Homberg is that he wrote a very good Haskalah Hebrew. I was therefore surprised when I saw the following in David Nimmer’s otherwise fantastic article in Hakirah 8 (2009): “We begin with Herz Homberg, a minor functionary who wrote in German since his Hebrew skills were poor” (p. 73). Since German was the last language Homberg learnt, I was curious as to how Nimmer was misled. He references Wilma Abeles Iggers, The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia (Detroit, 1992), p. 14. Yet Nimmer misunderstood this source. Iggers writes as follows, in speaking of the mid- eighteenth century: “Use of Hebrew steadily decreased, even in learned discussions. Naftali Herz Homberg, for example, asked his friend Moses Mendelssohn to correspond with him in German rather than in Hebrew.” All that this means is that Homberg wanted to practice his German, and become a “cultured” member of Mendelssohn’s circle, and that is why he wanted to correspond in this language. In this he is little different than so many others like him who arrived in Berlin knowing only Hebrew and Yiddish. Each one of them had a different story as to how they learnt German. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, in 1767, when he was nineteen years old, Homberg “began to learn German secretly.” 6. In a previous post I noted the yeshiva joke that R. Menasheh Klein’s books should be called Meshaneh Halakhot, instead of Mishneh Halakhot. Strangely enough, if you google “meshaneh halakhot” you will find that the books are actually referred to this way by a few different people, including, in what are apparently Freudian slips, B. Barry Levy and Daniel Sperber. In fact, Klein’s books are not the first to be referred to in this sort of way. In his polemic against Maimonides, R. Meir Abulafia writes (Kitab al Rasail [Paris, 1871), p. 13): הוא הספר הנקרא משנה תורה, ואיני יודע אם יש אם למסורת ואם יש אם למקרא. Abulafia is mocking Maimonides’ greatest work, and wondering if perhaps it should be called Meshaneh Torah! As for Klein, there is a good deal that can be said about his prolific writings, and they await a comprehensive analysis. When thinking about Meshaneh Halakhot, I often recall following responsum, which appears in Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 5, no. 141, and which I am too embarrassed to translate.

A well-known talmid hakham pointed out to me something very interesting. Normally we understand hillul ha-shem to mean that a non-Jew will see how Jews behave and draw the wrong conclusions of what Torah teachings are all about. However, in this responsum we see the exact opposite. The hillul ha-shem is that the non-Jew will draw the right conclusion! Yet the truth is that this understanding of hillul ha-shem is also very popular and is used by R. Moses Isserles, as we will soon see.. Here is another responsum that will blow you off your seats, from Mishneh Halakhot, New Series, vol. 12, Hoshen Mishpat no. 445.

If you want to understand why three hasidic kids are sitting in a Japanese jail, this responsum provides all you need to know. Can anyone deny that it is this mentality that explains so much of the illegal activity we have seen in recent year? Will Agudat Israel, which has publicly called for adherence to high ethical standards in such matters, condemn Klein? Will they declare a ban on R Yaakov Yeshayah Blau’s popular Pithei Hoshen, which explains all the halakhically permissible ways one can cheat non-Jews? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t declare that members of your community strive for the ethical high ground while at the same time regard Mishneh Halakhot, Pithei Hoshen, and similar books as valid texts, since these works offer justifications for all sorts of unethical monetary behavior. The average Orthodox Jew has no idea what is found in these works and how dangerous they are. Do I need to start quoting chapter and verse of contemporary halakhic texts that state explicitly that there is no prohibition to cheat on one’s taxes?[15] Pray tell, Agudah, are we supposed to regard these authors as legitimate halakhic authorities? I have no doubt that there was a time that the approach found here was acceptable. In an era when Jews were being terribly persecuted and their money was being taken, the non-Jewish world was regarded as the enemy, and rightfully so. Yet the fact that pesakim reflecting this mindset are published today is simply incredible. Also incredible is that R. David Zvi Hoffmann’s Der Schulchan-Aruch und die Rabbinen über das Verhältniss der Juden zu Andersgläubigen, a classic text designed to show that Jewish law does not discriminate monetarily against contemporary Gentiles, has not yet been translated. Hoffmann’s approach was shared by all other poskim in Germany, who believed that any discriminatory laws were simply no longer applicable.[16] R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg stated that we must formally declare that this is what we believe. Can Agudah in good conscience make such a declaration, and mean it? The truth is that there is an interesting sociological divide on these matters between the Modern Orthodox and the haredi world. Here is an example that will illustrate this. If a Modern Orthodox rabbi would advocate the following halakhah, quoted by R. Moses Isserles, Hoshen Mishpat 348:2,[17] he would be fired.[18] טעות עכו”ם כגון להטעותו בחשבון או להפקיע הלואתו מותר ובלבד שלא יודע לו דליכא חילול השם. If I am wrong about this, please let me know, but I don’t believe that any Modern Orthodox synagogue in the country would keep a rabbi who publicly advocated this position.[19] Indeed, R. Moses Rivkes in his Be’er ha-Golah on this halakhah wants people to know that they shouldn’t follow this ruling.[20] See also Rivkes, Be’er ha-Golah, Hoshen Mishpat 266:1, 383:1, and his strong words in Hoshen Mishpat 388:12 where he states that the communal leaders would let the non- Jews know if any Jews were intent on cheating them. Today, people would call Rivkes a moser. I believe that if people in the Modern Orthodox world were convinced that Rama’s ruling is what Jewish ethics is about, very few of them would remain in Orthodoxy. In line with what Rivkes states, this halakhah has been rejected by Modern Orthodoxy and its sages, as have similar halakhot. As mentioned, Hoffmann’s Der Schulchan-Aruch is the most important work in this area. Yet today, most people will simply cite the Meiri who takes care of all of these issues, by distinguishing between the wicked Gentiles of old and the good Gentiles among whom we live. Thus, whoever feels that he is living in a tolerant environment can adopt the Meiri’s position and confidently assert that Rama is not referring to the contemporary world. Yet what is the position of the American haredi world? If they accept Rama’s ruling, and don’t temper it with Meiri, then in what sense can the Agudah claim that they are educating their people to behave ethically in money matters? Would they claim that Rama’s halakhah satisfies what we mean by “ethical” in the year 2009? Will they say, as they do in so many other cases, that halakhah cannot be compared to the man-made laws of society and cannot be judged by humans? If that is their position, I can understand it, but then let Aish Hatorah and Ohr Sameach try explaining this to the potential baalei teshuvah and see how many people join the fold. If this is their position, then all the gatherings and talks about how one needs to follow dina de-malchuta are meaningless, for reasons I need not elaborate on. Furthermore, isn’t all the stress on following dina de-malchuta revealing? Why can’t people simply be told to do the right thing because it is the right thing? Why does it have to be anchored in halakhah, and especially in dina de-malchuta? Once this sort of thing becomes a requirement because of halakhah, instead of arising from basic ethics, then there are 101 loopholes that people can find, and all sorts of heterim as we saw in Klein’s responsum. I would even argue that the fact that one needs to point to a halakhic text to show that it is wrong to steal is itself a sign of our society’s moral bankruptcy.[21] 7. In Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters I stated that Maimonides nowhere explicitly denies the existence of demons, yet this denial is clearly implied throughout his writings. It was because Maimonides never explicitly denied them that so many great sages refused to accept this, and assumed that Maimonides really did believe in demons. (In my book I cited many who held this position.) I first asserted that Maimonides never explicitly denied demons in my 2000 article on Maimonides and superstition, of which the second chapter in my new book is an expanded treatment. While working on the original article I was convinced that Maimonides indeed denied demons in his Commentary to Avodah Zarah 4:7. However, I had a problem in that so many who knew this text did not see it as an explicit rejection. In fact, I was unaware ofanyone actually citing this text to prove that Maimonides denied the existence of demons. (Only a couple of months ago did R. Chaim Rapoport call my attention to R. Eliezer Simhah Rabinowitz, She’elot u-Teshuvot ve-Hiddushei Rabbi Eliezer Simhah [Jerusalem, 1998], no. 11, who does cite this text as an explicit rejection of the existence of demons. I also recently found that R. Avraham Noah Klein, et. el.,Daf al ha-Daf [Jerusalem, 2006), Pesahim 110a, quotes the work Nofet Tzufim as saying the same thing. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Klein doesn’t have a list of sources, so I don’t know who the author of this work is.) Seeing that R. Zvi Yehudah Kook was quite adamant that Maimonides believed in demons,[22] I turned to R. Shlomo Aviner, who published R. Zvi Yehudah’s work, and asked him about Maimonides’ words in his Commentary toAvodah Zarah. Aviner convinced me that Maimonides should be understood as only denying that occult communication with demons is impossible, not the existence of demons per se. He wrote to me as follows: הרמב”ם לא כתב שם בפירוש שאין שדים, אלא ששאלה בשדים היא הבל, וכך אנו רואים מן ההקשר שהוא מגנה שיטת שונות להשיג דברים או ידיעות, כגון “כשוף וההשבעות והמזלות הרוחניות, ודבר הכובכים והשדים והגדת עתידות ומעונן ומנחש על רוב מיניהם ושאלת המתים.”

I was still not 100 percent sure, but the fact that so many great scholars who knew the Commentary to Avodah Zarah assumed that Maimonides indeed believed in demons gave me confidence that Aviner was correct.[23] Even R. Kafih, in speaking of Maimonides denial of demons, does not cite the Commentary,[24] and this sealed the matter for me. I therefore assumed that all Maimonides was denying in his Commentary to Avodah Zarah 4:7 was the possibility of conversation with demons, and not demons per se. (R. Aviner doesn’t speak of simple conversation, but this was my assumption.) Following publication of the article in 2000 no one contacted me to tell me that I was incorrect in my view of Maimonides and demons. So once again I was strengthened in my assumption, and repeated my assertion in Studies in Maimonides. Not too long ago I received an e-mail from Dr. Dror Fixler. Fixler is one of the people from Yeshivat Birkat Moshe in Maaleh Adumim who is working on new editions of Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah. I will return to his work in a future post when I deal with the newly published translation of the Commentary. For now, suffice it to say that he knows Arabic very well, and he asserts that there is no doubt whatsoever that in the Commentary to Avodah Zarah 4:7 Maimonides is denying the existence of demons. So this brings me back to my original assumption many years ago, that Maimonides indeed is explicit in his denial. If there are any Arabists who choose to disagree, I would love to hear it. 8. I recently sent a copy of the reprint of Kitvei R. Yehiel (2 vols.) to a famous and outstanding Rosh Yeshiva. In my letter to him I mentioned that the books were a donation to the yeshiva library. He wrote back to me as follows: מאשר בתודה קבלת כתבי הגאון רבי יחיאל יעקב וויינברג זצ”ל בשני כרכים. מלאים חכמה ודעת בקיאות וחריפות ישרה, ולפעמים “הליכה בין הטיפות” מתוך חכמת חיים רבה. אולם בכרך השני יש דברים שקשה לעכל אותם, כגון לימוד זכות על מתבוללים ממש (הרצל ואחה”ע [אחד העם] בגרון ועוד) למצוא בהם “ניצוצות קדושה”. ומי שיראה יחשוב כי מותר לומר לרשע צדיק אתה. לכן כרך ב’ נשאר אצלי וכרך א’ לעיון התלמידים הי”ו.

I don’t think that any Rosh Yeshiva in a Hesder yeshiva would say that we should shield the students from the words of a great Torah scholar, but maybe I am wrong. I would be curious to hear reactions. In response to his letter, I sent this Rosh Yeshiva R. Abraham Elijah Kaplan’s essay on Herzl, to show him that Weinberg’s views in this regard were not unique. Interestingly, in his letter to me the Rosh Yeshiva also wrote:

מה מאד נפלא מ”ש בסוף עמוד ריט על שיטת הגר”ח מבריסק לעומת שיטת הגר”א. מבחינה זו אנו לומדים בישיבה בשיטת הגר”א.

He was referring to this amazing letter from Weinberg: קראתי את מאמרו של הגרי”ד סולובייציק על דודו הגרי”ז זצ”ל. השפה היא נהדרה ונאדרה והסגנון הוא מקסים. אבל התוכן הוא מוגזם ומופרז מאד. כך כותבים אנשים בעלי כת, כמו אנשי חב”ד ובעלי המוסר. מתוך מאמרו מתקבל הרושם כאלו התורה לא נתנה ע”י מרע”ה חלילה כי אם ע”י ר’ חיים מבריסק זצ”ל. אמת הדברים כי ר’ חיים הזרים זרם חדש של פלפול ע”ד ההגיון לישיבות. בהגיון יש לכל אדם חלק, ולפיכך יכולים כל בני הישיבה לחדש חידושים בסגנון זה, משא”כ בדרך הש”ך ורעק”א צריך להיות בקי גדול בשביל להיות קצת חריף ולכן משכל אנשי הישיבות מתאוים להיות “מחדשים” הם מעדיפים את ר’ חיים על כל הגאונים שקדמו לו. שאלתי פעם אחת את הגרי”ד בהיותו בברלין: מי גדול ממי: הגר”א מווילנא או ר’ חיים מבריסק? והוא ענני: כי בנוגע להבנה ר’ חיים גדול אף מהגר”א. אבל לא כן הדבר. הגר”א מבקש את האמת הפשוטה לאמתתה, ולא כן ר’ חיים. הגיונו וסברותי’ אינם משתלבים לא בלשון הגמ’ ולא בלשון הרמב”ם. ר’ חיים הי’ לכשלעצמו רמב”ם חדש אבל לא מפרש הרמב”ם. כך אמרתי להגאון ר’ משה ז”ל אבי’ של הגר”יד שליט”א.

9. My last two posts focused on R. Hayyim Dov Ber Gulevsky. With that in mind, I want to call everyone’s attention to a lecture by R. Aharon Rakefet in which he tells a great story that he himself witnessed, of how students in the Lakewood yeshiva were so angry at Gulevsky that they actually planned to cut his beard off. It is found here [25] beginning at 65 minutes. The clip has an added treat as we get to hear the Indefatigable One, who mentions travelling to Brooklyn together with a certain “Maylech” in order to visit Gulevsky. 10. And finally, apropos of nothing, here is a picture that I think everyone will get a kick out of. The bride is Gladys Reiss. It shows the Rav in his hasidic side. (Thanks to David Eisen and R. Aharon Rakefet for providing the picture.) [1] Some of the lies of this paper have been dealt with by R. Moshe Alharar, Li-Khvodah shel Torah (Jerusalem, 1988). Here are two condemnations of Yated printed in Alharar’s book.

For examples of the paper’s most recent outrages, take a look at two articles from the issue that appeared during the Ten Days of Penitence (!). The articles are available here and here.

The first is a vicious attack on the Shas MK R. Hayyim Amsellem for his authorship of a halakhic study arguing that those non-Jews who serve in the Israeli army should be converted using a less strict approach than is currently in practice. Amsellem, who is a student of R. Meir Mazuz and an outstanding talmid hakham, wrote this piece and sent it to some leading poskim to get their opinions. Amselem also discussed his approach in an interview.

What did Yated do? It attacked the “nonsensical, heretical remarks” of Amsellem, knowing full well that his article was not a practical halakhic ruling, but a work of Torah scholarship sent out for comment. And why is what he wrote “nonsensical” and “heretical”? Because it contradicts the viewpoint of “Maranan ve-Rabbanan Gedolei Yisrael,” the papacy that Yated has created. As with every papacy, no one is permitted to have a different viewpoint. We see that clearly in the next article I linked to. Here the paper deals with the great sages who have permitted brain death. Obviously, Yated has started to believe its own papal rhetoric, since rather than offer any substantive comments, all it can do is refer to R. Elyashiv and unnamed former and current gedolei Yisrael. From Yated’s papal perspective, this is supposed to silence all debate, as if Judaism is a religious dictatorship. Yet it is not, and although Yated will never admit it, there are also former and current gedolei Yisrael who do accept brain death. [2] “Be-Inyan ha-Gemarot ha-Mevuarot ha-Hadashim,” Or Yisrael 50 (Tevet, 5768), p. 42. [3] “Be-Inyan Hadpasat ha-Gemara im Targumim u-Ferushim Hadashim,” Or Yisrael 50 (Tevet, 5768), pp. 39-40. Gorelik even claims that the only reason the Hafetz Hayyim agreed to support the Daf Yomi program was as a defense against the Haskalah and Reform. R. Chaim Rapoport responded to Gorelik, ibid., pp. 57ff. [4] For the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s take on this, see here beginning at 8 minutes (called to my attention by a friend who wishes to remain anonymous). The Rebbe’s words are very strong: Since we know that “people” do not tell a lie that is likely to be found out, it must be that the liars are not in the category of “people” i.e., human beings! [5] The phenomenon of children distorting their father’s legacy is also something that deserves a post of its own. One thinks of the efforts of the children and grandchildren of R. Gedaliah Nadel and R. Eliezer Waldenberg in opposition to the publication of Be-Torato shel R. Gedaliah and the reprinting of Hilkhot ha-Medinah. R. Nadel’s children were even successful in having Be-Torato removed from Hebrewbooks.org. There are many other such examples, some of which relate to the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin, which like Yeshiva University was sometimes a place to be forgotten after one left the world of German Orthodoxy. For example, see R. Shmuel Munk’s biographical introduction to the work of his father, R. Shaul Munk, Bigdei Shesh (Jerusalem, 1973). There is no mention that R. Shaul studied at the Rabbinical Seminary. If that wasn’t enough, R. Shmuel, in the introduction, p 19, even attacks the German Orthodox practice of reading German poetry, going so far as to say that no one [!] has permitted this. As with the Yated, “no one” means “no onewe regard as significant.” For an earlier post that deals with a posthumous removal of the Rabbinical Seminary from one graduate’s biography, see here.

None of the obituaries of R. Shlomo Wolbe mentioned that he studied at the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin for a short while, but in this case I assume that the writers were unaware of this. The entry on Wolbe in Wikipedia does mention it, and I was the source for this information. My source is Weinberg’s letter to Samuel Atlas, dated June 10, 1965:

כך סיפר בן אחיו של וולפסון, מר אביעזר וולפסון, תלמיד מונטרה לפנים, ואח”כ תלמיד ישיבת באר יעקב, שבה משמש המנהל רוחני מר וולבה, יליד ברלין, בנו של סופר חילוני וכופר גמור. למד בכתות הנמוכות של בית מדרשנו, ואח”כ הלך לישיבת מיר ונעשה לחניכו של ר’ ירוחם ז”ל, המשפיע המוסרי הגדול.

The point mentioned by Weinberg, that Wolbe was raised in a non-Orthodox home, was never a secret. Some additional details of his turn to Orthodoxy were related by Anne Ruth Cohn, Dayan Grunfeld’s daughter. See here

Yet, as we have come to expect, the Yated cannot be honest with its readers. Thus, in its obituaryhere . It writes: “Shlomo Wolbe was born in Berlin to R’ Moshe in Tammuz 5674,” making it seem that he was from an Orthodox home. The obituary continues with more falsehoods: “As a child he studied in his home city and at a young age was sent to Yeshivas Frankfurt.” Needless to say, there is also no mention of Wolbe’s university studies.

Another example worth mentioning is the following: Those who read Making of a Godol will recall the description of R. Aaron Kotler’s irreligious sister who tried to convince him to leave the world of the yeshiva. Yet in Yitzchok Dershowitz’ hagiography of R. Aaron, The Legacy of Maran Rav (Lakewood, 2005), p. 63, this communist sister is described as “religious, but ‘secular education’ oriented.” See Zev Lev, “Al ‘Gidulo shel Gadol,’” Ha-Ma’ayan 50 (Tishrei, 5770), p. 104.

The absolute best example of this phenomenon relates to the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s brother, Yisrael Aryeh Leib. He was completely irreligious. There are people alive today who can testify to his public Sabbath violation. He even kept his store open on Shabbat. See Shaul Shimon Deutsch, Larger than Life (New York, 1997), vol. 2, ch. 7. Deutsch was even able to speak to his widow. Yisrael Aryeh Leib also has a daughter who presumably would be willing to describe what her father’s attitude towards religion was, if anyone is really interested in knowing the truth. I think it is very nice that Chabad in England commemorates his yahrzeit, see here, and this is very much in line with Chabad’s ideology that every Jew is precious. Yet what is one to make of this “institute”?

Here Yisrael Aryeh Leib, “the youngest brother of the Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, who lives forever,” is turned into a rabbi and devoted chasid. I actually contacted the person who runs the “institute” and asked him how he can so blatantly distort the historical record. Communicating with him was one of the most depressing experiences I have had in a long time. It is one thing for a person to believe foolish things, but here was a guy who had drunk an extra dose of the Kool Aid, and with whom normal modes of conversation were impossible. This is actually a good limud zekhut for him: unlike many other cases where the people distorting the historical record are intentionally creating falsehoods, in this case the distorter really believes what he is saying. [6] R. Mark Urkowitz, who was a student of R. Gorelik, told me that at the end of his life Gorelik commented to him that he was very happy he taught at YU, since this was the only yeshiva whose graduates were bringing Torah to all corners of the United States. When Urkowitz later told this story to another of Gorelik’s son, he denied that his father could ever have said this. Urkowitz and one other person recalled to me how at Gorelik’s funeral YU was never mentioned in any of the eulogies. It was as if the major part of Gorelik’s life for forty years had never existed. [7] Ishim ve-Shitot (Tel Aviv, 1952), pp. 58-59. [8] Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Rav, vol. 1, p. 227. [9] This is Zevin’s preface to the story (translation in Louis Jacobs, A Tree of Life [London, 2000], pp. 54-55, n. 49):

Why did R. Hayyim refuse to write responsa? Some think that his remoteness from the area of practical decisions stemmed from the fact that he belonged to the ranks of “those who fear to render decision,” being afraid of the responsibility that it entails. But this is not so. The real reason was a different one. R. Hayyim was aware that he was incapable of simply following convention and that he would be obliged, consequently, to render decisions contrary to the norm and the traditionally accepted whenever his clear intellect and fine mind would show him that the law was really otherwise than as formulated by the great codifiers. The pure conscience of a truthful man would not allow him to ignore his own opinions and submit, but he would have felt himself bound to override their decisions and this he could not bring himself to do. [10] See here. [11] For more on Abraham Bick the communist, and his relationship with R. Moshe Bick, see here for the following report:

אברהם ביק הכרתי בפעם הראשונה כהרה”ר של רוסי’ בא לבקר לארה”ב בשנת תשכ”ח ביזמת הרב טייץ מאליזאבעט נוא דזשערזי. וכבוד גדול עשו לו וכל גדולי ארצינו באו לבקר אותו ולחלוק לו כבוד — הוא למד בסלאבאדקא והי’ ממלא מקומו של הרב שלייפער, וניהל בחכמה ובתבונה את רבנתו ועמד על משמרתו הוא בא ביחד עם החזושל לענינגראד - השומר- בבארא-פארק עשו פאראד גדול וכל הישיבות והבית-יעקב יצאו לרחובה של עיר לחוק כבוד להעומד על משמרת היהדות ברוסי’ משם נסעו לישיבת תורה-ודעת שכל הגדולים דברו וחיזקו את הרב לעווין .משם נסעו לאליזאבעט מקום הרב טייץ — שחלקו רב בענייני יהדות רוסי’ — וגם שם הי’ פאראד גדול. והרב לעווין הי’ מאוד מרוגש .ודמעות נזלו מעיניו. נחזור לביק-הוא הי’ קאמאניסט. והי’ מכונה הרב של הקאמאניסטים. הוא כתב מאמרים בשבועון שלהם ותמיד המליץ טוב על הקאמאניסטים שהם לא רודפים את הדת. וכשהרב לעווין הי’ כאן הוא הי’ מראשי המחותנים שם. ואז דברתי איתו בפעם הראשונה. אח”כ הוא עלה לארה”ק ועבד במוסד הרב קוק ומצאתיו שם אך לא רציתי להכאיבו ולא דברנו על העבר. אז נתן לי שני ספרים א] זהרי-חמה הגהות על הזוה”ק מהיעב”ץ. ועוד ספר למוסרו לש”ב הרה”ג רמצ”א זצ”ל ביק — הוא פשוט רצה להתפייס איתו כי הם לא היו שוה בשוה-וכשהבאתי את הספרים להרב ביק דברתי איתו על אברהם ביק ואביו הרה”ג שהי’ חתן המשמרת שלום מקאדינאוו, והי’ בעל הוראה מובהק. בקיצור לאחר זמן חזר לארה”ב בגין אישתו וביתו שלא היו בקו הבריאות — הוא הי’ דמות טראגית — אביו שלחו מארה”ב ללמוד לארה”ק. אך הי’ תמיד שומר תורה ומצוות הי’ אידאליסט ולא הי’ בן יחיד במחשבתו שהקאמאניזום יציל את האנושות והיהדות .הוא לא עשה זאת מטעם כסף .הוא לא הי’ מאטראליסט. והשם הטוב יכפר בעדו.

[12] Ha-Maor, Tamuz 5726, p. 18. [13] Ha-Gaon ha-Rav Meir Amsel (Monsey, 2008), p. 262. [14] See R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer in Moriah, Nisan 5769, p. 150. [15] R. Chaim Rapoport provides some of these sources in his article in Or Yisrael, Tishrei 5770. [16] For R. Abraham Elijah Kaplan’s view, see his Mivhar Ketavim (Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 287-288. [17] After quoting this halakhah, Rama cites an opposing view, meaning that the first ruling ,יש אומרים but this is cited as is the one Rama accepts. Even this view is not something that וי”א דאסור :would go over well in the Modern Orthodox world להטעותו אלא אם טעה מעצמו שרי [18] Although he might not be fired, any Modern Orthodox rabbi who stated as follows would also be in hot water, as the congregation would be outraged: “One is not allowed to admire gentiles or praise them.” The writer of these words goes on to say that collecting baseball cards is also forbidden. “While it may be that some people trade them only for financial gain, the reason for collecting the cards is more likely because of an appreciation and admiration for the personalities depicted on them. This is forbidden.” Quite apart from the terrible lack of judgment in putting the first sentence (“One is not allowed to admire gentiles or praise them”) into an English language book (for obvious reasons), should we be surprised that a halakhist who thinks baseball cards are forbidden is one of the poskim of the formerly Modern Orthodox OU? See R. Yisrael Belsky, Shulchan Halevi (Kiryat Sefer, 2008), pp. 132, 133. (For another ruling against baseball cards, see R. Yitzhak Abadi, Or Yitzhak, Yoreh Deah no. 26.) In discussing the issue of praising Gentiles and the prohibition ofle tehanem, Meiri writes as follows, in words that have become basic to the Modern Orthodox ethos (Beit ha-Behirah: Avodah Zarah 20a):

כל שהוא מן האומות הגדורות בדרכי הדתות ושמודות בא-להות אין ספק שאף בשאין מכירו מותר וראוי.

[19] Samuel Cohon discusses Rama’s ruling in Faithfully Yours (Jersey City, 2008), pp. 87-88. [20] See similarly R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady, Shulhan Arukh, Hilkhot Ona’ah, no. 11. [21] Along these lines, see here for a recent article by R Binyamin Lau dealing with a husband who wanted to know if he was halakhically permitted to hit his wife. [22] Sihot ha-Rav Tzvi Yehudah: Bereishit, ed. Aviner (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 295-297, 310-312. [23] In Studies in Maimonides I cite numerous examples. Here is one more to add to the list. R. Tzefanyah Arusi, “’Lo ba- Shamayim Hi’ be-Mishnat ha-Rambam,” Mesorah le-Yosef 6 (2009), p. 396:

מה שהשיג הגר”א בעניין השדים והכשפים, יש להשיב על כל דבריו: וכי מניין לו שלדברי רבנו אין מציאות לשדים ולמכשפים וכיו”ב.

[24] See his Ketavim (Jerusalem, 1989), vol. 2, pp. 600-601. [25] “The Bracha for Kidush Ha-Shem,” Sep. 21, 2008.

Interview with Professor Lawrence Kaplan

Interview with Professor Lawrence KaplanConducted by Baruch Pelta on December 22, 2008 at the 40th Association for Jewish Studies ConferenceTranscribed Using the Services of Olivia WiznitzerCo-edited by Lawrence Kaplan and Baruch Pelta Lawrence Kaplan received his BA from Yeshiva College, his MA and PhD from Harvard University, and his rabbinical ordination from Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. He has taught at McGill University since 1972, and is currently Professor of Rabbinics and Jewish Philosophy in its Department of Jewish Studies. In the spring of 2004 he held a Harry Starr Fellowship at the Center for Jewish Studies of Harvard. Baruch Pelta is a senior at Touro College South majoring in Jewish Studies. Olivia Wiznitzer is the Editor-in-Chief of “The Observer,” the Stern College for Women and Sy Syms undergraduate student newspaper. Olivia may be reached at [email protected] for those interested in contacting her. I have conducted two semi-formal interviews with Dr. Kaplan. While both interviews were conducted simply out of personal interest, I believe the latter will be of interest to Judaic Studies scholars, especially those who are interested in how Orthodoxy has developed. What follows is an edited transcript of said interview with footnotes. Although I meant to focus this conversation around his scholarly opinions about the rise of Daas Torah in Orthodoxy, we were able to discuss other topics within Dr. Kaplan’s realm of expertise as well. –BP Baruch Pelta: I guess my first question has to be if you changed your position since writing your famous essay on Daas Torah [1] and also, has Daas Torah evolved as a conception since then? Lawrence Kaplan: It’s an interesting question. I pretty much stumbled upon the subject- here’s a little prehistory. When Rav Hutner’s article on the Holocaust appeared in the Jewish Observer, it upset me greatly [2]. Oftentimes, things that get you angry turn out to be productive (similar to my being upset with Rabbi Meiselman’s article on the Rav [3] which led to my writing “Revisionism and the Rav” [4]). Most of my article in Tradition was really a critique of Rav Hutner’s basic position on the Holocaust—mainly a historical critique, but also somewhat of a theological critique [5]. While Rav Hutner himself did not refer to his article as a Daas Torah perspective on the Holocaust, the editors of the Jewish Observer did. So just at the very end of my Tradition article, I decided to raise some issues about Daas Torah in a somewhat critical vein. Despite the rather tentative and preliminary nature of my remarks on the subject, it seems they received a fair amount of attention. Therefore, when YU was having a symposium on “Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy,” the very first Orthodox Forum, the organizors asked me to give a full-blown talk on the subject, which obviously required a good deal of work on my part. And, actually, I have a later Hebrew version of the article, where I elaborate upon some things I write in my English version, correct a few errors of mine – something I attributed to the Meiri was not really by the Meiri – and update a few comments here and there [6]. But what I want to emphasize is that, as I explicitly state in my article, I wasn’t putting forward my own positive view of rabbinic authority. I was more criticizing the idea of Daas Torah as I think it’s popularly presented in the Haredi world. Some people might have misunderstood me to mean that I believe that all rabbis should speak only about pots and pans and should not have any say on communal matters. I never said that. And the other point which I made in my article is that I’m not sure if there’s necessarily throughout Jewish history one view of the limits and scope of rabbinic authority. Moreoever, I acknowledged the traditional rabbinic authority accorded to the rabbi who is the rav of the kehillah – actually I may have done this more in my Hebrew article, based on a reference that Professor Marc Shapiro pointed out to me – where the rav of the kehillah, by virtue of being rav of thekehillah , is granted a good deal of extra-halakhic authority on general communal issues. But even with respect to the rav of a kehillah, it’s not so clear – if you look at the Vaad Arba Aratzot, the laypeople oftentimes kept the rabbis on a short leash. If you look at the community in Amsterdam, it was the lay figures who put Spinoza in Cherem. Not the rabbis. Even though there were some prominent rabbis there at the time. To repeat, a lot of times, even in term of rabbis of communities – certainly in the Middle Ages and early modern times – lay leaders played quite a great role. Now the Rashba, on the other hand –but again, he was the official head of the community – obviously played a major role in the Maimonidean Controversy. But it should be pointed out that other people weren’t afraid to disagree with him, even though they admitted his preeminent stature. Other figures weren’t afraid to take issue with him, obviously respectfully, but they weren’t afraid to take issue with him. The idea of Daas Torah, as a charismatic notion of rabbinic authority, is something different. It doesn’t come out of nowhere, so it’s not yeish me-ayin. But, as I and others see it, it is an expanded view of traditional conceptions of rabbinic authority, precisely because of greater challenges in the modern period to rabbinic authority. And the classical sources which have been cited as support for it don’t seem to prove the larger claims made on its behalf. One such source is the notion ofEmunas Chachamim. But it must be said that the phrase is very general; what it means is not so clear. The meaning attributed to it by the exponents of Daas Torah seems to be a late nineteenth century development, imported from the Hasidic view of the Rebbe. The source cited most often in support of the notion of Daas Torah, and which I focused on most in my article, is Lo Sasur. As I pointed out, according to most authorities it applies only to the Beis Din Hagadol. I further pointed out that the view of Afilu omrin lekha al yemin shehu semol is that of the Sifre. The Yerushalmi is the other way, that only if they say yemin is yemin and semol is semol do you have to listen to them. In my article, particularly the Hebrew version, I went through all the different ways how different scholars try to reconcile the two sources. The authority who seems to be the key figure for the exponents of Daas Torah is the Sefer HaChinuch — he’s the one who applies the Sifre generally to Chachmei HaDor. But the Sefer HaChinuch’s view is more of a practical view; you have to submit to the authority of Chachmei HaDor not because they necessarily have such great understanding, but just because otherwise you’re going to have chaos and anarchy. So it’s a more practical view. So what I suggested is that the modern view of Daas Torah – again, I’m not saying it was made out of whole cloth – is arrived at by taking the idea of the Sefer HaChinuch applying Lo Sasur to all Chachmei HaDor and combining that with the view of the Ramban who talks about the Beis Din Hagadol’s great understanding and how God will protect them from error, etc [7]. Part of the problem in writing a critique of the concept of Daas Torah is that it is a moving target; people keep on defining it differently. When people are oftentimes defending it, they define it more modestly: it’s a limited notion, we’re not saying the “gedolim” are infallible, maybe there’s a plurality of views that are Daas Torah, but obviously rabbis should have some say on broader communal issues, etc. There was an exchange in The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society between me and Rabbi Alfred Cohen — where if I understood him correctly, he proposed this type of scaled-down notion of Daas Torah [8]. And if that is all that is meant by it, I’m not sure if I would necessarily disagree that much. But what I find is that when it’s actually used in the rhetoric of the Haredi world, it’s used to make rather extreme claims. First of all, despite the idea of the plurality of Daas Torah, it’s pretty clear to me that originally within the Agudah circles, it was used to legitimate the Haredi world and to delegitimate the Modern Orthodox. BP: You’re saying now or back then? LK: Certainly there was no pluralism in Rav Shach‘s use of Daas Torah in his harsh critique of Rav Soloveitchik [9], and I think that’s the way it’s still generally used. And the second thing is that it really is used to stifle dissent and any type of criticism. I think the example of Rabbi Slifkin is the key example. It’s really clear to me that initially many prominent American Roshei Yeshiva were upset at the way he was treated. I just reread the original ban on Rabbi Slifkin [10] and was struck by the extremity of the language, almost the violence of the language — kefirah, minus, afrah le-pumei, it’s just such a terrible book, etc. Then the banners claimed that the rabbonim who had given the book haskamos supposedly hadn’t really read the book, but they heard it was being used for kiruv so they wrote haskamos. But, of course, they all retracted their haskamos once the terrible kefirah in the books was called to their attention. We know all that is not really true, and it is also clear that the way he was treated, without giving him any time to present his case, was extremely unfair and unjust [11] – BP: Can I interject right there, though –the story is that a lot of askanim had a lot to do with this ban [12]. So what’s the difference between those askanim and the Spinoza case? LK: The difference is that in the Spinoza case the lay leaders were the ones who officially in the name of the community banned Spinoza. Here supposedly the askanim were there just to advise or inform the gedolim, but ultimately the idea is that the gedolim are the ones who make the final decision based on their good judgment. Of course, the question is often raised as to what extent are these askanim really limiting the flow of information and shading it and presenting it in ways in which they will get the conclusions they want to get, and I think that’s a serious question. But getting back to the point, it seems to me pretty clear that to begin with the American Roshei Yeshiva were not happy with the ban, certainly with its language. I think they were upset and felt they would be looked upon by the general world as some type of primitives. But the bottom line was that there was no public criticism. They all fell into line. There can’t be any type of dissent. How can you disagree with the Gedolim, with Daas Torah? There was no one who actually publicly criticized the ban – supposedly, Rav Aharon Feldman originally supported Rabbi Slifkin– that’s the word. But then he too fell into line and came out with a public attack on him [13]. BP: Maybe Rav Kamenetsky or Rav Belsky – they seem to have dissented from everybody else; they never retracted their haskamos. LK: They never retracted their haskamos; that’s true. Then there was Rav Aryeh Carmell who continued to support Rabbi Slifkin [14]. But no one would actually criticize the actual banning of Rabbi Slifkin’s books. BP: I think Rav Kamenetsky said they’ll have to answer for it after the Resurrection [15]. It could be he’s an exception to the rule. LK: Okay; perhaps he’s an exception. I wonder though if he made the statement publicly. To return to the general issue of Daas Torah and to your original question as to what extent am I rethinking things. Dr. Benny Brown wrote about Daas Torah in an article, I think, in Mechkerai Yerushalayim [16]. His general point is that scholars like Professor Jacob Katz, his students, and others who were influenced by his approach – including myself among those others – overemphasize, maybe, the break between Orthodoxy in the modern era and pre-Modern traditional Judaism. Brown also sees stages in development in the idea of Daas Torah. His more specific point is that people who wrote about the idea of Daas Torah – Jacob Katz, Gershon Bacon, myself – ignored the idea of d’kula ba, that everything somehow is contained, hinted at, or alluded to in the Torah, as one source for the idea of Daas Torah. But from my reading of the sources Brown cites, it seems to me that d‘kula ba was traditionally used not so much in the modern communal and political Daas Torah sense – that is, d’kula ba gives the right to great rabbinic scholars to make authoritative and final decisions on matters of policy. It was generally used in more of a non-political sense, that is, you study the Torah and you get a great insight into nature and reality and history. The one who first used de–kula ba in the modern Daas Torah sense was Rav Elchanon Wasserman, I think at the Agudah convention in 1937. Here Brown criticized me, and he was right. BP: Because you said Rav never mentions it. LK: Yes, so I was wrong on that. I mean, based on the writings of Rav Elchonon I had read, I said that Rav Elchonon only speaks about de’ot torah, but doesn’t really speak about Daas Torah in the sense of this idea of special knowledge given to great Rabbis enabling them to make a final authoritative decision on public policy. There I was simply wrong, and I overlooked this talk of Rav Elchonon at the Agudah convention. But my present view is that this political communal twist to de–kula ba was actually Rav Elchonon’s own innovation, and here I would disagree with Brown. Brown pushes it back to the Chafetz Chaim. As Brown pointed out, the Chafetz Chaim speaks aboutde –kula ba extensively. In my article I quote a text of the Chafetz Chaim – or rather an oral shemuah attributed to the Chafetz Chaim by Rabbi Greineman. And I say there that I’m not sure whether the Chafetz Chaim said this or not, because it’s an oral shemuah. I’m not saying Rabbi Greineman was dishonest, but people remember things how they remember them; we have that all the time. That’s why we have to check the archives. BP: Did you see Yoel Finkelman’s recent article [17]? It’s very relevant to what you’re saying. LK: I responded to Toby Katz’s comment on Hirhurim about it [18]. Her view was that either something is 100% objective or it’s manipulation. In my view, good scholars try to be honest and present all the relevant evidence and different ways of interpreting it. Of course, you have your own interpretation and cannot be completely objective, but still you try to give all the evidence, whether it supports your view or calls it into question, and try to be as fair as possible to opposing views. So I think it’s a false dichotomy she was drawing there. Anyway, getting back to what I was saying. Someone was writing a memoir and remembered a conversation he had with Roosevelt on the day that Pearl Harbor was attacked. And he remembered the meeting so clearly that he even remembered the chairs in which he and Roosevelt sat! And then he checked his diary, and he wasn’t in Washington that day! So he wasn’t there! He checked his diary or his journal of appointments, and realized he must have conflated different meetings. So, how is this relevant to the Chafetz Chayyim’s view regarding de-kula ba? The point of the shemuah of the Chafetz Chaim that was attributed to him by Rabbi Greineman was [Dr. Kaplan opens up my copy of Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy and finds page 8] — “The person whose view is the view of Torah can solve all worldly problems, both specific and general. However, there is one condition attached: the Daas Torah must be pure, without any interest or bias. However, if a person possesses Daas Torah but it is intermingled even slightly with other views of the marketplace,” then that’s not real Daas Torah. That’s a good example of Daas Torah delegitimating the more modern type of rabbis. Now Benny in his article was willing to attribute more authenticity to this statement of the Chafetz Chaim than I was. And what he found in his research were many other statements of the Chafetz Chaim in the area of d’kula ba that I didn’t know about. But it seems to me at least, and I discussed this with him, that none of the other statements of the Chafetz Chayyim that Benny cited actually made the point made by the statement attributed to him by Rabbi Greineman. All the other statements of the Chafetz Chaim were more general statements that a person who studies Torah is given insight into reality, can understand many things, etc. But the more political and delegitimating emphases of the statement attributed to him by Rabbi Greinman are not found in his other statements. The point, then, that I made to Benny was that the statements he cites from actual texts of the Chafetz Chaim himself do not really go as far as the oral shemuah. So my assumption is that Rabbi Greineman perhaps heard other statements of the Chafetz Chaim regardingd’ kula ba, statements presenting the old, non-political version of de- kula ba, and he honestly misremembered them and inadvertatly conflated them with Rav Elchonon’s version ofde-kula ba. Again, I don’t think I ever said that the notion ofDaas Torah was invented out of whole cloth; I do try to speak of a certain type of development. And perhaps Benny is right, and it has somewhat deeper roots than I or Gershon Bacon were willing to acknowledge. But this is a matter of degree; I still maintain that in its current form maybe it’s drawing upon certain sources, but it’s pushing them and extending them in a more extreme direction. You asked me to look at ten statements and sources that Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb had cited in support of the concept of Daas Torah [19]. I have to say I was very unimpressed. BP: But there was one that a lot of people I asked didn’t know why it wasn’t Daas Torah, where there was a pesak in the mahloket between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel about… LK: Oh yes, that was the gemara in Eruvin about whether noach lo l’adam she’nivra o she’lo nivra [20]. And because nimnu ve-gamru– whatever that means – that noach lo l’adam she’lo nivra mi she-nivra — does that mean that you have to believe that? Is that an authoritative hashkafic pesak, as it were? I mean, does the Rambam ever quote that – the Rambam obviously believes all existence is good; so does he believe it would have been better for man not to be created? Actually, the Rambam says that in matters of aggadah there is no pesak. There’s also another quote where I think Rabbi Gottlieb was simply wrong. Supposedly in Hilkhos Mamrim the Rambam attributes authority to Beis Din HaGadol in matters of hashkafah. But the Rambam doesn’t talk about that there. He speaks about three types of law: peirushim mekubalim mi’pi ha’shmuah, laws derived through interpretation– that is, through the use of the 13 Middos— and Takanot and Gezeirot. I don’t see him speaking there about issues of hashkafah. Now, there are mitzvos that deal withemunah . That’s something else. Returning to the larger isue: There are issues of public policy, which is one thing, and then there are issues of hashkafah. I think the issue of Rabbi Slifkin is more a matter of the limits of hashkafah. I firmly believe that there’s a great deal of room for plural views on matters of hashkfah, and equally firmly reject the idea that only the views I accept are legitimate, while the other views are illegitimate. Rabbi Slifkin also said that if the Haredi gedolim had said that they don’t want his books in their communities – okay, that their right, it’s their communities. But to issue general bans is a different story [21]. BP: But to return to the gemara Rabbi Gottlieb cites about whether it would have been better for man ot be created or not…how would you deal with that one? LK: It’s a very strange thing, but I didn’t really check it carefully. My knowledge of the Rambam, which is pretty good, is that the Rambam doesn’t agree with the supposed pesak that it would have been better for man not to have been created – maybe others do. You can do some type of computer search through the Bar Ilan program or one of the other programs, check all of the 5000 books on file. Actually, Maimonides says it’s the other way around; Maimonides attacks, for example, Razi — in the Guide 3:12 I think it was–where Razi claims there’s more evil than good in the world. So it’s very hard to imagine how the Rambam would agree with that. In his letter on astrology to the Sages of Montpellier, when discussing maamarei Hazal apparently disagreeing with his position, he says there are three possibilities. Either it was a daas yachid, or maybe the rabbi was saying it for his particular audience, sort of likede’ot hechrachiyot –necessary beliefs – or maybe the rabbi didn’t mean it literally but intended some type of metaphorical interpretation. And in this connection, what exactly does noach lo l’adam she’lo nivra mi she-nivra mean? Perhaps the Rambam would give it a metaphorical interpretation . But it certainly seems to me that traditionally – obviously, there have been debates about these issues – but traditionally there has been a sort of general consensus that within matters of hashkafah there are certain very broad boundaries, but there’s lots of room for differences within those boundaries, and we’re not really dealing with some type of pesak. Attempts to limit or narrow those boundaries, I find troubling. Particularly, getting back to Rabbi Slifkin, when it seems that the majority of rishonim actually agree with his position. Someone had this long list- I mean, a very long list of rishonim who support his position [22]. So you want to say it was good for them, it’s not good for us, OK. You want to say that we don’t accept Rabbi Slifkin’s position, fine. But to call it kefira, minus, etc.– that’s pretty bad. BP: I guess the question that a Haredi person would ask is okay, let’s say that’s all true. But why not have the rabbis as the ultimate authorities? In other words, let’s say we err. Like I want to be a good mitzvah-observing yid and if I err and the rabbis tell me what to do and I decide not to do it, right, so I’m erring – I’m going against the rabbis. But if I do what the rabbis say, I’m going to heaven on Rav Elyashiv’s coattails. LK: But I think you have a certain responsibility to use your – BP: To use your mind. But there’s a long anti-rationalist tradition within Judaism. So l’chora that’s the safe side, so why not just go with that? Because there you don’t have to think; you can do what they say to do and there’s long Jewish roots for such a tradition. LK: Yes, but there’s the issue of whether you believe that what they say is really true. And is the anti-rationalist side so safe? This relates to some famous criticisms of Pascal’s Wager. First, Pascal is just assuming the issue is choosing between Christianity and Atheism. But what about Hinduism or Islam? But the other criticism is what happens if we get to Heaven and sure enough there is a God, but He says, “All those people who played it safe? I don’t like those types. The ones who used their own judgement, even if it led them not to believe in Me, them I like.” So how do you know that when you get to heaven, and you say to God that you latched on to Rav Elyashiv’s coattails, that God won’t reply, “Hey, c’mon, why didn’t you start thinking on your own? Obviously you should respect Rav Elyashiv’s view, of course take it seriously, study it, don’t just dismiss it out of hand. But who says I want you just to swallow it whole, particularly since there are other views out there. So why just him, and why did you assume that all the other views are illegitimate?” And of course, the truth of the matter is we know that within the Agudah’s circles there’s been a breakdown of the old unity. Rav Shach and others broke with the Agudah. It would be a worthwhile thing to read the Jewish Observer and see if they ever allude to the fundamental break when Rav Shach broke with the Agudah and founded his own party. BP: The impression I get from the Haredi world is that even in their rhetoric there’s a certain allowance for limited pluralism. Kimmy Caplan and Nurit Stadler had an article in the AJS Perspectives on Haredim. So they emphasized in that article how this is a heterogenous community [23]. So I mean I think people say you have your Gadol, I have my Gadol and nobody can have Rav Soloveitchik because he’s treif. But I’m saying, that’s the impression I get. Is that what it is, is that how it’s always been? Or not really?LK: It’s a complicated question. My impression is that there are two levels. When they’re explaining the idea of Daas Torah, they explain it in a more pluralistic way. But in practice, Rav Elyashiv says something and everybody falls into place. BP: Here’s another topic: You wrote your article about Rav Hutner, then you wrote your article about Daas Torah, and you also wrote to the Novominsker Rebbe about how he misunderstood Rabbi Lamm [24]. And so I was wondering if there were any consequences to that – did anyone talk to you, did you get emails, did you get letters…? LK: I remember ages ago when my article on Rav Hutner appeared, somebody came up to me—he is now a very noted scholar–and he told me oh how brave I was. But I don’t live in New York, I don’t live in Boro Park, I don’t live in a yeshivishe community, I don’t owe my parnassah to them. I live in Montreal and teach at McGill. I don’t think it required any particular bravery on my part. I know my article on Daas Torah has acquired a certain amount of fame –some might say notoriety– but I would say that from my standpoint, I always thought my most important article—which I wish were better known– is my article on the Shemoneh Perakim [25]. BP: That’s your real scholarship. LK: Real scholarship, and I feel that it’s an important article, really a basic essay on the Rambam. I think I got to the heart of the Shemoneh Perakim, and various people who have studied the Shemoneh Perakim and then read my article tend to agree. I remember that I was once asked by a student what I thought was my most important article, and I answered the one on the Shemoneh Perakim. He said, “What about your article on Daas Torah?“ But from a scholarly point of view I think my article on the Shemoneh Perakim is more important. Not that there isn’t any scholarship in my Daas Torah article. Sometimes I feel bad because people assume it’s more of a critique or polemic, so they overlook the scholarly discussion. Like my discussion of Lo Sasur. As I said before, I explore in a systematic way—actually, I probably do this more in my Hebrew article than my English one – all the different ways in which both medieval and modern rabbinic scholars and commentators have tried to deal with the issue of the apparent contradiction between the Sifre, as quoted by Rashi, and the Yerushalmi. I went through all the ways they either tried to harmonize the apparently conflicting views, as well as looked at those who say, as does Rav David Zvi Hoffman, that maybe the Sifre and the Yerushalmi simply disagree. So I think that there are certain discussions of Lo Sasur in more strictly scholarly articles which don’t quote me, when I feel they should have quoted me. Professor Moshe Halbertal in his book on the Ramban makes a point that there are two ways of reading the Ramban on Lo Sasur, a soft reading of the Ramban and a hard reading of the Ramban [26]. When the Ramban says that Torah nitna al daatam shel Hakhmei ha-Torah, does it mean that the Sages could be wrong in their ruling, but they’re given the authority to rule, so you can’t disagree with them? Or does it mean that the meaning of the Torah is indeterminate, and the Sages determine its meaning, in which case they can’t be wrong? Already in my article, I show how Avi Sagi opts for the soft reading and Aaron Kirschenbaum for the hard reading – or is it vice-versa, I don’t remember. So Halbertal mentions these possibilities; he refers to some scholars who have discussed this; but he doesn’t refer to me, although I had already anticipated his point, because I don’t think he thought of looking at my article, since it’s considered more of a polemical work than a work of scholarship. And the truth is that it is both, and I say so in the article. I say, look, my article is not a strictly scholarly article, but I would like to believe that it’s based on sound historical rabbinic scholarship, but obviously it has a certain ideological tendenz. Anyway, I gather a lot of people have read it. It’s always nice when you write something and you find out people have read it and even appreciated it. Sometimes I feel I write articles and who knows who reads them. Perhaps they sunk like a stone into oblivion.This past summer I was at a conference in Frankfurt, and a young scholar said to me, “I was very influenced by your article on Maimonides and Mendelssohn [27].” So I said “Really?” He replied that he liked my idea of looking at the roots of Mendelssohn‘s thought, of showing how Mendelssohn used Maimonides, and the article influenced his way of looking at things. But again, even though I obviously have my own take on things, I try to be as objective and scholarly as possible. Someone actually once wrote – which I took as a compliment – that they feel that Kaplan has no agenda, particularly in terms of his interpretation of the works of Rav Soloveitchik. I try to see things how they are. Well, everyone thinks that’s what they are trying to do. BP: Speaking of the Rav, maybe we could briefly discuss “Revisionism and the Rav.” So you took on the left, took on the right – LK: More the right. BP: Would you take issue with anybody more towards the center? LK: The way it seems to me is that there are issues about Rav Soloveitchik which are really open to interpretation, and I might have a different interpretation of these issues than others. I wasn’t really speaking about that; I was speaking about clear cases of ideological revisionism, where I think the Rav’s position on the issues in question is pretty clear, but scholars try to deny the obvious for ideological reasons. BP: In general, you don’t see revisionismfrom the center. LK: No, I don’t see revisionism from there. People have different opinions, both legitimate. For example, I disagree with Professor Dov Schwartz. Schwartz sees a very sharp difference between the figure of halakhic man in Ish Hahalakha and the figure of ha- Ish Elokim in U-Vikashtem Misham, while I see them as much more similar [28]. That’s a matter of interpretation; that’s not a matter of revisionism. Even with regard to secular studies – there are aspects of this issue where the Rav was vague, and there’s room for disagreement. In a forthcoming essay, I take issue with Professor David Shatz’s reading of The Lonely Man of Faith. Overall, I think his article is a great article, but I think he had a bit too much of a positive take of the Rav’s portrait of Adam 1 in The Lonely Man of Faith [29]. He said that Adam 1 in imitating God’s creativity fulfills the comand of v’halakhta b’drachav; but the Rav, when he speaks about Adam 1’s creativity, never quotes v’halakhta b’drachav. I also note that the term Hesed is only applied to Adam 2. Adam 1 attains dignity and responsibility, but only Adam 2 is motivated by a sense of Hesed. My feeling is – and I state this in my article – that David’s essay would have been stronger had he focused more on the concrete man of faith who is both Adam 1 and Adam 2. So there are legitimate issues of interpretation. Another issue open to disagreement is how you relate The Lonely Man of Faith to Ish Hahalakha or to other essays.Yet another is the Rav’s view about evolution, and the import of his statement about it in the beginning of The Lonely Man of Faith. All these matters are open to interpretation. I might have my reading and have my reasons for thinking it is the most convincing reading, but I don’t think those who have other readings and disagree with me are engaging in revisionism. There are also many similar questions about how to interpret Rav Kook. In general, only now with the publication by the Toras Horav Foundation of many of the unpublished manuscripts of the Rav are we beginning to get a clearer picture of his thought. For example, the volume The Emergence of Ethical Man, edited by Dr. Michael Berger, sheds new light, in my view, on the Rav’s view concerning evolution. In this connection, I want to add something even if it’s off the topic. The Emergence of Ethical Man quotes Buber extensively, particularly Buber’s Moses. And not only does the Rav quote from it, but also, interestingly, the Rav’s idea that Avraham in leaving Mesopotamia behind to go to the land of Canaan was leaving the city behind for a more pastoral form of life is taken from Buber. You probably could find meforshim, maybe Abarbanel, who might say something similar, but the Rav’s way of phrasing the matter — the pastoral mode of life as opposed to the urban mode of life– reflects the influence of Buber, whom, again, he explicitly cites. It seems he had read Moses at about the time he was writing his essay, and obviously those views of Buber which are not Orthodox he leaves out, but other, “kosher“ views of Buber, as it were, he feels free to cite and make use of. I was thinking when I get around to it I’d like to write a review essay of that volume. But, then again, I often tell my students I have two lists. I have a list of articles I’ve written, and another list of articles I haven’t written, but hope to get around to writing someday. And the second list is much longer and also probably much more interesting than the first list. BP: What are you looking at writing? LK: Well, I have this paper I gave yesterday which I am in the middle of writing up on the Rambam’s Hakdamah to the Peirush Ha–Mishnah. There are also essays I’ve already written which haven’t appeared yet, but are forthcoming – one of these days! I have an article about the concept of faith in Rabbi Azriel of Gerona, where I take issue with Mordechai Pachter’s article on the subject, and offer a very different reading [30].Then I just mentioned my critique of David Shatz. It is part of a long article, which is taking forever to appear, on The Lonely Man of Faith and contemporary modern Orthodox Jewish thought. Most of the article is about Rabbi David Hartman’s readings of The Lonely Man of Faith. Another article which I wrote – but is sitting in limbo, and I have no idea when it will appear – is on Rav Hutner’s implicit theology of the Holocaust. I looked at a maamer in Pachad Yitzchak, Maamer Daled in the volume on Rosh Hashanah, where he speaks about Geon Yaakov. What does it mean when we use the phrase “Geon Yaakov“ on Rosh Hashana? My argument there is – the maamar, by the way, is a very fascinating maamar – that even though Rav Hutner in the maamar never mentions the Holocaust, I can’t imagine – and most people I discussed this with tended to agree with me—that in light of several radical and daring points he makes in the maamar, that the Holocaust wasn’t on his mind when he wrote it. So these essays should be appearing eventually. Ironically, one article, which I completed after all of these, but which will most probably be appearing before all of them – it should be out fairly soon – is an essay on the relationship between Rabbi Emanuel Rackman and the Rav, in which I show that they had a close working relationship in the 1950s and that Rabbi Rackman basically – and with the Rav’s approval – assumed the role of his intellectual lieutenant. For people who only know about the Rav’s famous public attack in 1975 on Rabbi Rackman, it should prove to be an eye opener. So, stay tuned! Getting back to future projects, people tell me that I should collect my essays on the Rav and make a book of them, and do the same for my essays on the Rambam. But I still have more essays to write on the Rambam and the Rav. As I just mentioned, I am in the middle of writing a long, and – at least I would like to believe– very important essay on the Rambam’s Hakdamah to the Peirush Ha–Mishnah. I’ve pretty written up the first half, but I have to do the second half and then the footnotes. And I don’t know if you heard the paper of Dr. Mordechai Cohen this morning on Ein Mikrah Yotzei Midei Peshuto in the Rambam. I have had an ongoing discussion with him about this, we’ve been exchanging emails; I have a different take on the subject, and one of these days I would like to write about this as well. There are a number of review essays I would like to write as well. First a review essay on some of the recent literature on the Ramban, then another review essay on some of the recent literature on Halevi. Finally, I’d like to write a review essay on the third volume in Toras HoRav, the one on mourning, death, and suffering – Out of the Whirlwind. This review will be different from my review essay of Worship of the Heart in Hakirah, where I was quite hard on its editor, Rabbi Shalom Carmy [31]. Parenthetically, while I still believe that my criticisms of the editing were correct, and, as far as I can tell, they remain unrefuted, in retrospect it seems to me that I might have softened somewhat a harsh phrase or two, and I regret that I did not do so. Be this as it may, I thought the editors of Out of the Whirlwind did a very good job of editing. There are a few points here or there where certain things could be a little clearer; they could have given a few more references here or there, but on the whole they did a very good job, and I will be happy to say so. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, I do not take particular pleasure in writing negative reviews. And then in the review essay, assuming I will ever get around to writing it, I will discuss the Rav’s views on aveilus and how one should respond to evil and suffering, and, with reference to aveilus, take issue with the Rav about some matters – his reading of a comment of Rashi and his understanding of certain aspects of the Rambam on the subject. I checked my ideas out in a phone conversation with Rav Elyakim Koenigsberg, who is a Rosh Yeshiva of YU who edited a volume of the Rav’s torah on aveilus [32]. That is a more lomdishe volume than Out of the Whirlwind. So I ran my criticisms by him, and he said okay. He’s not saying that he agrees with my criticisms, but I’m not off the wall. So if he says I’m not off the wall, you can agree, disagree, but it sounds okay to him—that’s good enough for me to go ahead. I feel safe in putting them forward, and that no one will say “Kaplan, you’re such an am haaretz, how can you even say such things?” Things always take longer than you expect. My daughter-in-law was recently joking that she can see me 50 years from now still writing [Dr. Kaplan scribbles on piece of paper in mock anger], “This guy got it all wrong.” Actually, I told people that I’m not going to write any more negative reviews, like my review of David Sorkin’s book [33]. From now on, I will review a book only if I can honestly say that it is a good book. Then, of course, I can proceed to discuss the issues the book raises, disagree with the author’s intepretation, you read the evidence this way and I read it that way, etc. Not that I don’t think it’s not important to write harsh reviews sometimes. You have to maintain standards and scare people, so people should know that you should write about things you know about and not write about things you don’t know about, do your homework, and don’t assume that you can write something sloppy and you’re not going to be called on it. Someone may sit down and rip you to pieces, so be careful! But I’ve written my share –some may say more than my share –of such reviews, and from now on I’ll leave that necessary, but unpleasant job to other people. [1] Lawrence Kaplan, “Daas Torah: A Modern Conception of Rabbinic Authority,” in Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy, ed. Moshe Z. Sokol (Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1992), 1-60[2] , “Holocaust – A Study of the Term, and the Epoch It Is Meant to Describe” trans. and ed. Yaakov Feitman and Chaim Feurman, Jewish Observer, October 1977: 6-12[3] Moshe Meiselman, “The Rav, Feminism, and Public Policy: An Insider’s Overview,” Tradition 33.1 (1998): 5-30[4] Kaplan, “Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of Modern Orthodoxy,” Judaism 48, no. 3 (Summer 1999): 290-311(accessed July 29, 2009).[5] Kaplan, “Rabbi Isaac Hutner’s ‘Daat Torah Perspective’ on the Holocaust: A Critical Perspective,” Tradition 18, no. 3 (Fall 1980): 235-248[6] Kaplan, “Daat Torah: A Modern View of Rabbinic Authority,” in Zev Safrai and Avi Sagi, eds., Between Authority and Autonomy in Jewish Tradition, 105-145. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1997 [Hebrew].[7] For the location of all of these sources and explication on how Dr. Kaplan interprets them, see “Daas Torah.”[8] See Alfred Cohen, “Daat Torah,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 45 (Spring 2003): 67-105 and the ensuing correspondence between Rabbi Cohen and Dr. Kaplan in idem. 46 (Fall 2003): 110-123.[9] Eliezer Menachem Man Shach, Michtavim U’Maamarim Mi‘maran Ha‘gaon Rabbi Elazar Menachem Man Shach 4:320 [10] Michel Yehuda Lefkovitz, Yitzchak Shiner, and Yisrael Elya Veintraub, “Giluy Daat,”Zoo Torah, (accessed July 28, 2009) [Hebrew][11] For an example of an article which promulgated the rumor that rabbis who gave their haskama to the book retracted, see the cached version of G. Safran, “Gedolei Yisrael Ban Rabbi Nosson Slifkin’s Books,” Yated Ne’eman, January 12, 2005, (accessed July 28, 2009). The Yated’s website later “updated” this article correcting this error while neither the Yated nor the website issued an official retraction of the claim. See G. Safran, Gedolei“ Yisrael Ban Rabbi Nosson Slifkin’s Books,” Yated Ne’eman, January 12, 2005, (accessed July 28, 2009). For Rabbi Slifkin’s account of how his books were banned and he was not given a chance to present his case, see , “Account of Events,” Zoo Torah, (accessed July 28, 2009).[12] “Account”[13] See idem. on Rabbi Feldman’s original support for Rabbi Slifkin. Rabbi Feldman later wrote an essay attacking the positions espoused by Rabbi Slifkin. See Aharon Feldman, “The Slifkin Affair – Issues and Perspectives,” Zoo Torah, (accessed July 29, 2009).[14] Rav Aryeh Carmell gave a haskamah and, when the ban came out, reiterated his support for Rabbi Slifkin. See Aryeh Carmell, Zoo Torah, (accessed July 28, 2009) and Aryeh Carmell, “Re: ‘The Science of the Torah’ by Rabbi Nosson Slifkin” Zoo Torah, (accessed July 27, 2009).[15] Daniel Eidensohn, “Age of the Universe,” Hirhurim, entry posted June 20, 2006, (accessed July 28, 2009). There have been a few other Haredi dissenters: see Toby Katz, “My 300-Page Book on the Slifkin Affair,” Cross Currents, (accessed September 9, 2009); Rav Chaim Malinowitz’s letter of support for Rabbi Slifkin available at Zoo Torah (accessed September 9, 2009); and Marvin Schick, “Richuk Karovim,” Cross Currents, (accessed September 9, 2009)[16] Binyamin Brown, “The Da’at Torah Doctrine: Three Stages,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 19 (2005): 537-600 [Hebrew] [17] Yoel Finkelman, “Nostalgia, Inspiration, Ambivalence: Eastern Europe, Immigration, and the Construction of Collective Memory in Contemporary American Haredi Historiography” Jewish History 23, no. 1 (March 2009): 57-82[18] The original comment by Mrs. Katz reads as follows:…I have news for you. EVERYONE manipulates history, everyone. Have you read any history textbook lately, and compared it to any history textbook of thirty or forty years ago? Women are much more prominent, Indians are noble and pure and one with nature, yada yada. No matter who writes the book, there is an agenda. Everybody has an agenda. Everybody. The myth of pure, dispassionate research — “just the facts, ma’am” — is just that, a myth. And academics are just as guilty of selective memory and revisionism as ArtScroll hagiographers, if not more so. See Toby Katz, comment on “Nostalgia as History,” Hirhurim, comment posted December 17, 2008, #604322 (accessed July 27, 2009).[19] Dovid Gottlieb, Sources“ for Daas Torah,” DovidGottlieb.com, (accessed July 27, 2009)[20] Eruvin 13b[21] Rabbi Slifkin discusses this view in various articles on his website. See for example Slifkin, “In Defense of My Opponents” Zoo Torah, (accessed July 29, 2009).[22] DES, “Sources Indicating That Chazal Did Not Possess Perfect Scientific Knowledge,” Torah, Science, Et Al., entry posted April 30, 2006, (accessed June 27, 2009)[23] Kimmy Caplan and Nurit Stadler, “Haredim and the Study of Haredim in Israel: Reflections on a Recent Conference,” AJS Perspectives, Spring 2008, 32[24] Kaplan, “Modernity vs. Eternity” Jewish Observer, April 1994: 13[25] Kaplan, “An Introduction to Maimonides’ ‘Eight Chapters,'” The Edah Journal 2, no. 2 (June-July 2002): 2-23[26] Moshe Halbertal, Al derekh ha-emet : ha-Ramban ṿi- yetsiratah shel masoret (Jerusalem: Mekhon Shalom Hartman, 2006) [Hebrew][27] Kaplan, “Maimonides and Mendelssohn on the Election of Israel, the Origins of Idolatry and the Oral Law” in Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism, edited by Alfred L. Ivry, Elliot R. Wolfson, and Allan Arkush (Amsterdam: Harwood, 1998), 423-445 [28] Dov Schwartz, Religion or Halakha: The Philosophy of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Trans. Batya Stein (Leiden: Brill, 2007)[29] David Shatz, “Practical Endeavor and the Torah u-Madda Debate,” Torah U-Madda Journal 3: 98-149. See also Kaplan, “Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Lonely Man of Faith in Contemporary Modern Orthodox Thought” (Lecture, Studies Exploring the Influence of Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik on Culture, Education and Jewish Thought: An International Conference Commemorating the Centenary of his Birth, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, December 31, 2003), Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, (accessed July 29, 2009).[30] Mordechai Pachter, “The Root of Faith is the Root of Heresy,” in Roots of Faith and Devequt: Studies in the History of Kabbalistic Ideas (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2004), 13-51. [31] Kaplan, review of Worship of the Heart: Essays on Prayer, by Shalom Carmy. Hakirah 5 (Fall 2007): 79-114.[32] Elyakim Koenigsberg, Shiuirei ha-Rav `al Inyenei Aveilus ve-Tisha be-Av (Jerusalem: Mesorah,1999)[33] Kaplan, review of Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment, by David Sorkin. AJS Review 23, no. 2 (1998): 300-307.

Wine, Women and Song – Part III

Wine, Women and Song: Some Remarks On Poetry and Grammar – Part III

בין דין לדין by Yitzhak of The previous two parts: Part I, Part II.

Lasciviousness

Rambam

In the first part of this essay, we have discussed the offenses of literature against grammar; a far more incendiary issue is the question of lasciviousness. Judaism seems to have historically been somewhat ambivalent on the matter; it is an ineluctable fact that many of our most celebrated poets, particularly of the Arabic and Mediterranean cultures, have written some rather provocative verse, but it is equally true that there has also been vociferous opposition to such literature.Rambam has a staunchly puritanical attitude toward song; he argues that a lascivious song is actually worse for He does concede, however, that .לשון הקודש being composed in apparently disagreed with him and granted a ”גדולים וחסידים“ sort of broad moral poetic license to verse composed in ואני אומר כי הדבור נחלק לפי חובת תורתינו חמשה חלקים,:Hebrew מצווה בו, ומוזהר עליו, ומרוחק, ורצוי, ורשות …ודע כי השירים המחוברים באיזו שפה שתהיה אינם נבחנים אלא לפי עניניהם, ויש לנהוג בהם בדרך הדבור שכבר חלקנוהו. והוצרכתי לבאר את זה ואף על פי שהוא פשוט מפני שראיתי גדולים וחסידים מאומתינו אם נזדמנו במסבת משתה או חתונה או זולתה ורצה אדם לשיר בשפה הערבית ואפילו היה ענין אותו השיר בשבח האומץ או הרצינות שזה מן החלק הרצוי, או בשבח היין, [1]ממחין על כך בכל אופן של מחאה ואינם מתירים לשמעו ואם זמר המזמר איזה פיוט מן הפיוטים העברים אין ממחין בכך ואין הדבר קשה בעיניהם על אף שהדברים האמורים יש בהם מן המוזהר עליו או מן המרוחק, וזה סכלות מוחלטת, לפי שאין הדבור אסור ומותר ורצוי ומרוחק ומצוה לאמרו מחמת השפה שהוא נאמר בה אלא מחמת ענינו, שאם היה ענין אותו השיר דבר נעלה חובה לאמרו באיזה שפה שיהיה, ואם היה ענינו מגרעת חובה לחדל ממנו באיזו שפה שיהיה.אלא שיש בזה לדעתי להוסיף אם היו שני פיוטים שיש להם ענין אחד לעורר את התאותנות ולהללה ולמשוך את הנפש אליה שזו מגרעת, והוא מחלק הדבור המרוחק לפי שהוא מעורר ומזרז למדה פחותה כמו שמתבאר בדברינו בפרק הרביעי, והיה אחד הפיוטים עברי והשני ערבי או פרסי, הרי שמיעת העברי והדבור בו יותר מרוחק לדעת התורה מחמת קדושת השפה, לפי שאין ראוי להשתמש בה אלא בענינים נעלים וכל שכן אם נוסף לכך שמוש בפסוק מן התורה או משיר השירים באותו הענין שזה יוצא כבר מן החלק המרוחק אל החלק האסור והמוזהר עליו, לפי שהתורה [אסרה לעשות לשון הנבואה מיני זמר במגרעת ובשפלות.[2 Immanuel of Rome

One of our most notorious and controversial poets was Immanuel of Rome, a prominent and celebrated figure of thirteenth and fourteenth century Italy. His entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia goes so far as to claim that he was “the most interesting figure among the Jews of Italy”, but hyperbole aside, he is certainly one of the most famous poets in Jewish history:The originality that Immanuel lacked as a scholar he possessed as a poet. In his verse this is given free play, and his poems assure him a place for all time. The child of his time, in sympathy with the social and intellectual life of Italy of that period, he had acquired the then prevalent pleasing, easy, humorous, harmlessly flippant tone, and the art of treating questionable subjects wittily and elegantly. He composed both in Italian and in Hebrew. Only a few of his Italian poems have been preserved. In a truly national spirit they portray and satirize the political or religious conditions of the time. Immanuel was held in high regard by the contemporaneous Italian poets; two Italian sonnets referring to his death have been preserved, which place him as poet beside Dante. Immanuel in fact knew Dante’s works, and drew upon them; in his own Italian as well as in his Hebrew poems there are very clear traces of the “divine poet.”Of course, his poetry has always been quite controversial among his more puritanical brethren:Immanuel’s “Diwan” was printed at Brescia 1491, Constantinople 1535, Berlin 1796, and Lemberg 1870; the last chapter also separately, Prague 1613, Frankfort-on-the-Oder 1713. Some passages have also been translated into German, e.g., the introduction and ch. 28, and the latter also into Italian. Yet the book is little known or disseminated. His contemporaries even censure Immanuel as a wanton scoffer, as he is occasionally flippant even in religious matters. He fared worse with later critics. Moses Rieti excluded him from the hall of fame that he erected to Jewish sages in his “Miḳdash Me’aṭ” (c. 1420). Joseph Caro even forbade the reading of his poems (Shulḥan ‘Aruk, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 307, 16). Immanuel Frances censures, his “wanton songs,” and warns all poets of love-songs against imitating them (“Meteḳ Sefatayim.” pp. 34, 38). This criticism is due to the strong admixture of the lascivious, frivolous, and erotic found in the poems. Never since Immanuel’s verse has the Hebrew muse appeared so bold and wanton, notwithstanding that his work contains poems filled with true piety and even with invitations to penitence and asceticism.As my brother observes, Immanuel was theLipa Schmeltzer of medieval Italy.In spite of the opprobrium directed toward him, he remained quite popular; as we have seen, hisMahberos are among the Incunabula (as is his commentary on Mishlei), and were republished numerous times. A facsimile of thefirst (Brescia 5252 / 1491 [Incunabulum]) edition is available from the JNUL Digitized Book Repository (in DjVu format), facsimiles of several others (Constantinople 1535 / 5295 and Frankfort 1713 / 5473 mentioned above, as well as Berlin 1796 / 5556) are available from the indispensable HebrewBooks.org (in PDF format), and a modern, vocalized and rather more readable, albeit incomplete, hypertext edition, based on A. M. Haberman’s edition (Tel Aviv 1947) is at Ben Yehudah.

A Problematic Stanza and Its Problematic Authorship

The critical stance toward Immanuel’s verse is eloquently expressed by Rav Baruch Epstein, who cites one particular stanza as the archetype of the immoral and unholy admixture of קודם לכן האריך רב עפשטיין לבאר]:the sacred and the profane טענת הרבה חכמים נגד הפייטן רב ישראל נגארא, ואחר כך כתב:] וכזה, ועוד מר מזה, היה גורל שיריו של המשורר הנודע עמנואל הרומי (חי במאה הראשונה לאלף זה, באיטליא), אשר עם היותו חשוב ומכובד מאוד בזמנו, עד שקהלת ישראל ברומימנתה אותו לנגיד ולפקיד עליה,[3] ונהג נשיאותו ברמה, ותחסרהו נשיאותו אך מעט מנציב מדינה … ועם היות דרכו ישרה ונמוסית, ומאס בתענוגות החיים … וגם זמן רב היה נכרע תחת מקרים ומאורעות, מלאים דאגות ותלאות וצרות רבות ורעות, עד שחייו היו לו למעמסה, ובטה אותם בלשונות ובניבים ומאמרים, תוגים, נוגים ומרים, …ובכל זאת, יען כי היתה קסתו מהולה בטבול לעג ולצון, וכמו חבירו בדעה וברעיון, ר’ ישראל מצפת [נגארא – י’], הנזכר למעלה, למד גם הוא אל דרך המשוררים האיטלקים, בני דורו ומדינתו, אשר גם הם, כהערבים והתוגרמים … השקיעו עצמם בכל רוחם והגיונם במשלי אהבים ושירי דודים, והשתדל לחקות אותם ברוח וברעיון ובניב שפתים, ורק הוסיף לתבל אותם בלשון ומליצה יפה מן המקרא או מלשונות חז”ל אשר אפשר לכוננם לענינם, למען ישאו עליהם חותם עברי ויהיו ערוכים לחך עברי ומכוונים לרוח עברי, כאשר שר לאחת מבנות ידידיו לעת כלולותיה:על צוארך ושער ראשךיש לברךיוצר אור ובורא חושךורומז על יתרון לובן הצואר ועל עומק שחרות השער, (כי שחרות השער הוא אחת מתנאי יופי האדם, וכמו שכתב בשיר השירים, שחורות כעורב):ואף על פי שהתנצל לומר, שכיון בזה “כדי לחבבה על בעלה” – אף על פי כן היתה דרכו זאת למורת רוח לגדולי דורו, ולא סבלו אותו ואת מאמריו ואת ספריו, וגם את הטוב שבהם.ויותר מזה היה לשמצה בדורות הבאים ולמשל לפה מגונה ולשפתים דוברות נבלה עד שנדון בנזיפה קשה ומרה ובדחיפה תקיפה ועכורה, וגם הועמד על עמוד הקלון ונקבע סרחונו לדורות עולם בספר כזה אשר מקומו וכבודו מלא עולם, וכל ימי השמים על הארץ לא יאסף נגהו מעם ישראל, ואין לך אדם בישראל שלא ידענו ובית ישראל שלא יאספנו, הוא הספר המחוקקי, הנודע למדי בפי כל, בשם “שולחן ערוך” ובו מבואר מפורש, חרות בעט ברזל ועופרת, דברים מרים כלענה וחזרת, על דברי זאת המחברת, של זה המחבר בעל המגערת, והוא בחלק אורח חיים הלכות שבת, בסימן ש”ז סעיף ט”ו, בדבר המצוה לכבד את יום השבת בדבורי קודש ובקריאה קדושה ובענינים קדושים, כתוב לאמר:”מליצות ומשלים של שיחות חולין ודברי חשק כגון ספרי עמנואל אסור לקרות בהם בשבת, ואף בחול אסור, משום מושב לצים“גזר דין מר וקשה! וכמה ידאב הלב ותעיק הנפש על אדם גדול ונעלה זה, שכל כך הקדיח תבשילו וקלקל מעשיו, עד שנדון בתוכחת גערה ובנזיפה מרה לדור ודור ולנצח נצחים!רחמנא Emphases in the original.]Rav Epstein’s outlook is][לצלן![4 quite problematic, however, and he has apparently made a profound error here; the stanza which he sees as the archetype of the egregious in Immanuel’s poetry actually appears (with a a classic series of ,ליעלת החן couple of minor differences) in יפת מראה! love poems written by the universally reveredRihal וקולך ערבבך אראה יפי מתערבמוצאי בקר וערבעל-לחיך ושער ראשך אברך :We have several possibilities[יוצר אור ובורא חשך[5 to Rihal is erroneous ליעלת החן The attribution of

Rav Epstein misattributed (and misquoted) the stanza in question Immanuel plagiarized the stanza from Rihal

Immanuel independently conceived of the same poetic image previously imagined by Rihal

It is interesting that this is not the first time that confusion has arisen about the authorship of this stanza. It is cited in a commentary to Shir Ha’Shirim by an unknown author of the late twelfth century (a century before ושער שחור:Immanuel), who attributes it to an anonymous poet נוי הוא שנאמר שחורות כעורב (שיר השירם ה:יא), וגם לאשה הוא נוי This[כמו שאמר המשוררעל הדרךושער ראשךאברך יוצר אור ובורא חושך[6 has already been noted by Heinrich (Haim) Brody in his notes השיר הזה נודע לרבים והביאו:to the aforementioned poem of Rihal חכמים ומשוררים את דבריו; … שורה [הנ”ל] הובא בפרוש שיר השירים למחבר בלתי נודע, הנדפס בספר “תהלה למשה” הוא ספר היובל להחכם לשנת 1896 צד[ZfHB] רמש”ש, (חלק העברי צד 172; וראה במה”ע 7].(43]David (Kahana) Kohn had previously published the version of this stanza cited by Rav Epstein, providing yet a third attribution – to R. Avraham Ibn Ezra:[8]Kohn does acknowledge the stanza’s appearance in Rihal’s poem, and he asserts that he, as well as others, utilized this “well known נמצא גם כן בכ”י פאריז הנזכר[9], ורבי יהודה הלוי וכדומה:”phrase השתמשו גם כן במאמר הזה שהיה נודע אז לרבים, ובמקום שאמר רבי יהודה הלוי: על לחייך ושער ראשך וכו’, אמר הרבי אברהם אבן עזרא Brody scathingly dismisses the attribution to Ibn[על צוארך[10 ודברי השורה הזאת בעצמה הביאם מלקט אחד (בכ”י פאריז) בתור:Ezra פתגם בפני עצמו בתוך שאר פתגמים, אשר יחסם ר”ד כהנא כלם להרבי אברהם אבן עזרא והדפיסם כלם – והשורה שלפנינו בכלל – על שם החכם והמשורר הזה בספרו “רבי אברהם אבן עזרא” … ומי לא יתמה על רבי יהודה הלוי, שהוא מביא בשירו דברי הרבי אברהם אבן עזרא אות באות, ורק תיבת צוארך הוא כותב לחייך! ומי לא יתמה בראותו, כי הפתגם הזה, מכון בכל חרוזיו (ראשך, לברך, חשך) לחרוזים שנעץ אותם רבי יהודה הלוי בכל שלשת חלקי האזור, כאלו לא נברא כל השיר הנחמד הזה רק בשביל פתגמו של הרבי אברהם אבן עזרא, שהיה אז – בימי רבי יהודה הלוי! – נודע לרבים ומצא חן בעיני ראש המשוררים עד כי לקח אותו וישימהו בכליו! וכל כך למה? כדי שלא להודות על האמת, שאין לסמוך על מלקט (או מעתיק) כ”י פאריז ואין ממש בדברי מי שמיחס את While we have earlier!כל הפתגמים ההם להרבי אברהם אבן עזרא considered the possibility that Immanuel may indeed have written the lines that Rav Epstein attributes to him, I have and although I ,מחברות not been able to locate them in his have not made an exhaustive search, I think it is safe to assume that if Brody, the great scholar of medieval poetry, who actually eventually published an (incomplete) edition of does not cite, in his lengthy and detailed [מחברות [the 11 note, a parallel passage in Immanuel, then Rav Epstein is simply mistaken.[Additionally, Rav Epstein had apparently seen the work of Kohn, or some ,מלקט the text of the anonymous derivative of one of them, and not the original poem, as he His .אברך and לחיך in place of יש לברך and צוארך has אודה ולא][.attribution to Immanuel, though, is quite baffling that until encountering the aforementioned note of Brody אבוש while researching this essay, I had never heard of him, but I then serendipitously read Rabbi Haim Sabato’s wonderful The Dawning of the Day (Yaacob Dweck’s English translation of and I was delighted to notice that Brody ,(כעפעפי שחר Sabato’s makes an appearance therein, in a typically delicious Sabato anecdote:Among those listening to the dawn hymns was … that very same respected man of letters and scholar of poetry, Doctor Yehudah Tawil, who had immigrated to the land of Israel from Aleppo in his youth. He had excelled in his studies at the Hebrew University and now gloried in the title of his doctorate. During the singing of the dawn hymns Doctor Tawil sat off to one side. As much as he participated, he still kept himself aloof. It was as if he were proclaiming that he was not actually a member of the community. He was both an insider and an outsider. He cherished the dawn hymns for their poetry. For all that he wanted to uphold the traditions of his father and his father’s fathers, he was a scholar of the Hebrew poetry of Sepharad at an important university and not a simple song lover like the rest of the congregation. For they sat and sang from booklets of the dawn hymns printed in Jerusalem by the cantor Asher Mizrahi, and their primary concern was the cantor’s solo and the transitions between the different musical modes. If the cantor mangled the meter or wrecked the rhyme in order to accommodate his melodic flourishes, they simply did not notice. While they clearly did not understand the words of the dawn hymns and experienced them as emotion, he sat with the great tomes of the medieval Hebrew poets published by Haim Brody in Berlin at the turn of the twentieth century. On numerous occasions, Doctor Tawil would chuckle to himself when he heard the simple souls confounding the verses of the dawn hymns. But at times he was so overcome with passion that he would rise from his seat. Enraged, he would approach them and interrupt their singing. Using the great tomes from the university he would try to show them the correct version of the hymn and exactly where they had made their mistake. They listened to him, either out of respect or to appease him and to prevent him from starting a troublesome quarrel. Everyone remembered the great dispute between him and the Cantor Nissim Dweck, about a single letter that denoted the definite article in a poem by Ibn Ezra. The cantor stubbornly refused to pronounce that one letter. Even after Doctor Tawil adduced proof upon proof from verses in the Bible, writings of the Sages, and medieval manuscripts, Cantor Dweck refused to listen to him. The cantor told him, “This is the received tradition from our fathers, and our fathers from their fathers, for many generations. We will not change our custom simply because of what you people have learned from scholars at the university.” Doctor Tawil took to his feet and held to his opinion, raising his voice until all the singing for that Sabbath was thrown into disarray. Since that incident, everyone knew that one did not argue with him.[12][Emphasis added.] Sensuousness in Rihal’s Poetry

Returning to Rav Epstein, according to all the above possibilities but the first, his point would seem to be utterly untenable; would anyone dare accuse Rihal of being Moreover, even if Rihal didnot ?מקדיח תבשילו ומקלקל מעשיו indeed write this particular verse, Rav Epstein’s thesis remains untenable, since Rihal undeniably did write odes to the charms of feminine cheek, hair, bosom and so on, such as יונה על אפיקיthe stunningly beautiful but amazingly sensuous in honor of a bride, containing vivid depictions of the ,מים woman’s physical attractions and the enchantment that they have wrought upon the poet, who longs to gaze at, caress, and יונה על-אפיקי מים-תאוה היא לעינים. הן יש לכסף:kiss her מוצא,וכיונתי מי ימצא,יפה רעיתי כתרצה-נאוה כירושלים. ולאנה ואנה תפנהלשכון באהלים, והנהבלבבי לשכנה מחנהגדול ורחב ידים. דדיה ללבי שסו,ויעשו בי וינסולהטיהם אשר לא יעשוכן חרטומי מצרים. הוד אבן יקרה הבן:איך תאדם ואיך תלבן!-ותמה בחזות על–אבןאחת שבעה עינים. הפכי לי לצוף ראש פתן,כי כל איש בהון יתתחתן,ואני לך לבבי אתן-מנה אחת אפים. לחי שושן ועיני קוטפים–שדי רמון וידי אוספים–אם שפתותיך רצפים–מלקוחי מלקחים. ושתי מחלפות כאורבמשערך זאבי ערב,אור לחיך בם מתערבכאור בקר בין ערבים. יעלת חן וכתם אופירבמאורה מאור יום תחפיר,ולבנה כלבנת ספירוכעצם השמים חשך אין לנגד זהרהלא-יכבה בלילה נרה,ועל-אור יום נוסף אורהויהיה לשבעתים. זה דוד ואין רעיה לצדו,באי היי עזר כנגדו-כי לא-טוב היותו לבדווטובים השנים! קרבו לך עתות דודים,ובא מועד להיות I have emphasized][אחדים,כן יקרב מועד מועדים-למחלת המחנים.[13 some of the most strikingly beautiful and / or provocative צבית חן, שביתני בצביך,ופרך העבדתני:verses.]Some others בשביך,ומיום הנדד בא בין שנינודמות לא אמצאה נמשל ליפיך: ואסעד בתפוח אדמדםאשר ריחו כמר אפך ועדיך,ותבניתו כשדיך, ועינוכעין אודם אשר נראה בלחיך.[14]מה-יפית יפת העין,ושכרת ולא מיין! היפה, אנה תזלי-ולאט עלי-לבבות משלי,העל חטאתם תכלישחטאו במראה עין? נא הראי את-מראיך,מה-תחשכי את-פניךבל יחזו בך חוזיך- ממך לא תשבע עין! הן לבנת ספיר לחיךומארך עדית עדיך,איך לא יאו להביט יפיך-,הגבר שתם העין! דודי אשר יעיר להבים,לכה נתעלסה באהבים,מיין חכים כי-טובים,דודיך מיין! שתו, דודים, ושכרו רעים,בבית נדיב מטע שועים,ובשמחת בן-שעשועים,השקו הנזירים ,The dilemma, though, remains: why is Rihal revered [יין![15 and Immanuel condemned? Ultimately, this question, hinging on subjective judgments about taste and style, may be impossible to answer definitively, but as Justice Stewart once said in a similar context:I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it[16]While I am not that well versed in Immanuel’s verse (after all, we are enjoined against reading him!), I think that although Rav Epstein is quite wrong in his conception of the unacceptable in poetry, Immanuel’s work may nevertheless have been viewed as containing quite distasteful endorsements of immorality, going beyond the relatively innocent celebration of passion and love that we find in Rihal.[17] I leave a more articulate, thorough and satisfying explanation to others better versed in the literature in question and the traditional Jewish attitudes toward poetry and immorality.Some further online material on Immanuel:

A fascinating, freewheeling discussion of the oeuvre of Immanuel in particular and lasciviousness in Hebrew poetry in general An essay on the history and culture of the Roman Jewish community, by Professor Shlomo Simonson, containing several paragraphs on Immanuel Ed Emory’s “website dedicated to the work of IMMANUELLO ROMANO, JEWISH POET OF ROME”[18]

[1] Rambam apparently considers “praise of wine” to be a laudable category of speech; I am unsure why. In any event, this reference justifies the mention of wine in this פירוש המשנה (מהדורת קאפח) אבות [essay’s title.[2 Modern scholarship considers this claim [א:טז[3 to be unsubstantiated; see, e.g., Immanuel’s entry in the רב ברוך עפשטיין, מקור [Encyclopedia Judaica.[4 ,ברוך מבוא, עמודים צ”ה ע”א – צ”ו ע”ב [5] ליעלת From the source given by [החן, י”ד, מועתק מפה[6 Brody, below.[7] Heinrich (Haim) Brody, Divan of Rabbi Yehudah Halevi (Mekize Nirdamim 1894-)Vol. II, notes, pp. 53-54. [One volume of this edition is listed as available at auction here.] I am greatly indebted to Wolf2191 for providing me with a copy of the relevant page of this difficult to obtain work. The image quality was less than perfect, and my transcription may, therefore, contain minor errors. I have enclosed some quasi-legible, and consequently possibly incorrectly deciphered, material in braces. See also פירוש עלSamuel Abraham Poznanski in his introduction to Kommentar zu Ezechiel und) יחזקאל ותרי עשר לרבי אליעזר מבלגנצי den XII kleinen Propheten von Eliezer aus Beaugency zum ersten Male herausgegeben und mit einter Abdha)(Mekize Nirdamim, Warsaw 1913) pp. LXXXIX-XC, where (citing Brody’s note) he uses the Shir Ha’Shirim commentary’s quotation of this stanza to date it.[8] David (Kahana) Kohn, Avraham Ibn Ezra (Ahiasaf: Warsaw 1922), Vol. I p. 85, available here.[9] See ibid. p. 230 n. 54, available here.[10] Ibid. p. 231 n. 62, available here.[11] Mentioned here.[12] Haim Sabato, The Dawning of the Day: A Jerusalem Tale, The Toby Press 2006 (translated by Yaacob Dweck), pp. וקול , כלה ב’, מועתק [13]27-28 מפה [14] צבית חן ,שביתני מועתק [מפה [15] מה–יפית, מועתק מפה[16 Concurring opinion to Jacobellis v. Ohio (378 U.S. 184), available here.[17] A fascinating, freewheeling discussion of the oeuvre of Immanuel in particular and lasciviousness in Hebrew poetry in general is here.[18] Emory’s site is hosted by Geocities, whose current owner, Yahoo.com, has announced plans to shut it down later this year. The ArchiveTeam is trying to save as much of it as it can (hat tip: /.), and I have saved a personal copy of Emory’s site.

Shemot Hakhamim & Its Ommissions

על ספר שמות חכמים, קיצור תולדות רבותינו הראשונים, אברהם מאיר וייס, בני ברק, תשס”ט מאת עקביא שמש Abstract: A new book, a history of Rabbis and their books from the Geonic and Rishonim periods, Shemot Hakhamim, Kitzur Toldot Rabotenu ha-Rishonim, while attempting to be comprehensive falls short on that account. In particular, the failure of the author to use “academic” works diminishes the value of this book. While A. Shamesh is willing to cede that attempting to read the entire corpus of academic literature on this period including all the disprete articles is daunting, that does not excuse ignoring whole works on this topic. For example, Shemot doesn’t use the classic bibliographic work, Sa’arei ha-Elef by R. M.M. Kasher (which recently has been updated here), any of Ta-Shma’s works, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri by Y.S. Speigel, A. Grossman’s works on the Rishonim, or Shivrei Luchot by Y. Emmanuel. These omissions allows for gaps and misinformation in Shemot, examples of which are provided below. Finally, A. Shamesh notes that even without resorting to “academic” works, the author could have still mitigated his omissions by consulting the works of R. Ya’akov Hayyim Sofer. אחד מהענפים שנעשו מאוד פופלריים בספרים היוצאים לאור בשנים האחרונות הוא: תולדותיהם של גדולי ישראל. יש ספרים המוקדשים לגדול אחד בלבד, או לכמה גדולים בני אותה משפחה. יש המוקדשים לגדולים בני אותה עיר, או בני אותה מלכות, ועוד כהנה וכהנה. אם באנו למנות כאן את הספרים הרבים שיצאו לאור בתקופתנו בנושא זה אין אנו מספיקים ואין אנו מפסיקים. יש מקום לשאול מה ראה דורנו צורך כה גדול בספרים אלו, אלא שאין זה כרגע הנושא שאני רוצה לעסוק בו. בתוך כל המכלול הגדול של ספרים אלו, יש מספר ספרים, לא גדול, שכל עיקרם לא בא אלא לעזור ללומד בידיעת סדר הדורות. לכשתמצא לומר הרי חשיבות הנושא הזה נלמדת מהספרים שהגיעו לידינו כבר מתקופת הגאונים, כמו סדר תנאים ואמוראים שמחברו אינו ידוע, או איגרת רב שרירא גאון. חלק מהאמור בספרים אלו עוסק בידיעת הדורות אם במעט ואם ברב. אין צורך להאריך ולהוכיח עד כמה ידיעה זו חשובה ללומד, ודי לעיין בהקדמתו של ר’ יחיאל היילפרין לספרו סדר הדורות, שבה הרחיב בנושא זה.[1] בדורנו, דור שבו יוצאים לאור ספרים רבים מכתבי יד של גדולי ישראל בכל הדורות, ידיעת הדורות נעשית קשה יותר ויותר. כדי לפתור קושי זה, נתחברו בדורנו מספר ספרים המוקדשים, כאמור, לנושא של ידיעת סדר הדורות. עתה יצא לאור ספר נוסף בתחום זה הנקרא: שמות חכמים. הסמתייחס לחכמים שפעלו בתקופת הגאונים והראשונים, ועליו נייחד את דברינו. המחבר כתב ב”פתח השער”, כי החיבור לא נעשה מלכתחילה להפצה בציבור אלא לתועלתו האישית. במשך הזמן כשגדלה כמות החומר הנלקט, הוא החליט להוציא מהדורה נסיונית לתועלת הציבור. הואיל והיא עוררה עניין רב בין הלומדים, הוא החליט להוציאה לאור לאחר שערך מחדש את החיבור, “תוך כדי מעקב צמוד למקורות נאמנים עד כמה שבידינו הדבר. עלי לציין כי המקורות נשאבו על הרוב מחיבורי רבותינו בעצמם. למעט מקורות מכתבי יד של חיבורים או איגרות, שנמסרו ע”י חוקרים מדורות שלפנינו”. יש לשבח אפוא את המחבר על זהירותו הרבה. צא וראה שאין הוא מסתפק בכך, אלא מוסיף זהירות על זהירות והוא כותב בהמשך דבריו: “גם במה שהכנסתי לחיבור אינני נוטל אחריות מלאה על אמינות המקורות”. אמנם הוא ניסה לברר את עד כמה שאפשר את אמינות המקורות, ואם הדברים לא היו ברורים דים הוא לא הביאם בספרו, אבל “לא תמיד יכולתי לעמוד על דיוק הדברים”. עוד הוא מוסיף ומודיע למעיין, ואף זו במסגרת זהירותו, כי “מן הראוי היה לנדוד על פני ספריות, וללקט משם חומר על חכמי הראשונים, מתוך ספרות רחבה של חוקרים ואנשי מקצוע שעסקו בתחום זה. אולם את עבודתי ערכתי כאמור במסגרת למודי, ולא ניתן לי הפנאי הדרוש להיקף הנ”ל”. ממילא מובן, כפי שהוא עצמו כותב בהמשך, כי אין הספר מכיל “את שמות כל החכמים השייכים לתקופת הגאונים והראשונים”. למרות כל ההסתיגויות הללו, הרי שלפנינו ספר שיש בו למעלה מ500- עמודים, ובו חומר רב על רבותינו. הספר ערוך בצורה שיש בה מן החידוש. כידוע, שאלת עריכת ספר מעין זה, היא שאלה קשה, שהרי ניתן לערוך אותו באופנים שונים. אי לזאת כתב המחבר בעמ’ יז, את “סדר עריכת הספר” ושם מסביר כי בחר לערוך את הספר בסדר “כרונולוגי, שהוא שנת לידת החכמים, לפי מידת הידיעות שבידינו”. הסיבה לכך נמצאת המשך דבריו, ששם הוא כותב כי “הספר מחולק לערכים כלליים, בפנים הערך ישנם אותיות קטנות הכוללות את פרטי החכמים הקשורים אליו בקשר רב ותלמיד, קשרי משפחה, או השייכים לתקופתו”. גם העריכה הפרטית של כל ערך היא מחודשת, והיא כוללת: “זמנו של החכם, משפחתו, רבותיו, חביריו ותלמידיו… שבחיו שנאמרו מפי חכמים אחרים, וכן ציון שמות החכמים שחכם זה מביא בכתביו, ולחילופין מי מהחכמים מביא בשם החכם הזה”. הוא מוסיף כי במדור “מן החכמים שמביא” ציין רק לחכמים שלדעתו יש בהם עניין מיוחד. אבל דברים מפורסמים כמו “שהרמב”ן מביא את הראב”ד” אין צורך לומר. גם המדור “הובא ב: נועד לעדכן מי מהחכמים מביא את החכם המדובר בשמו. ושוב אין השאיפה להביא הכל. מדור זה נועד לעדכן את הזמן שממנו והלאה החל החכם להתפשט ושהובא בשמו או בשם חיבוריו בספרים וחיבורים אחרים”. הספר פותח ב”מבוא כללי קצר”, שבו כותב המחבר “על מקומות התורה, בהם גדלו וצמחו מאורינו וגדולינו, לאורך תקופת החיבור”. הספר מסתיים בחמשה מפתחות שונים לעזר המעיין. המחבר הגיש לנו ספר על גדולי ישראל, הערוך בצורה נאותה ומחודשת. ניכר שהמחבר השקיע עמל רב בעבודה זו, והוא גם מעיד כך על עצמו בהקדמתו. עמל זה אינו לשוא, וברי כי הספר יהיה לעזר רב ללומדים. כשעיינתי מעט בספר זה, והתפעלתי מגודל המעמסה שלקח על שכמו המחבר, אמרתי הואיל והמחבר הוא מן הזהירים, הבה ונבחן אם אכן כך הדבר. אי אפשר כמובן לעבור על כל הספר בזמן מועט, והואיל וגם לי אין פנאי, פניתי בראשונה לעמוד כג שכותרתו: “פענוח המקורות וראשי תיבות, וכן פירוט מהדורות הספרים שצויינו מהם המקורות”. ראיתי שיש קצת אי דיוקים ברשימה זו. המחבר הקפיד לרשום את המחברים והמהדורות, אבל עדיין מצאנו ספרים שנדפסו יותר מפעם אחת, והמחבר לא ציין באיזה מהדורה השתמש. כגון: סדר הדורות, ספר הקבלה, ספר חסידים, צמח דוד, ועוד. אבל לעומת זאת ביחס לתשובות הרמב”ם, תחת הקיצור: ה”פ, הוא מציין במפורש שכוונתו למהד’ פריימן.[2] יש בה גם כפילויות שהרי “ספר קושיות”, הוא הוא “קושיות” הרשום קצת אחריו. וכן “שה”ק”, הוא הוא “שלה”ק”, הרשום שתי שורות לאחר הקיצור הקודם. יש כפילות מסוג אחר שהרי הקיצור: “מה”ר”, מתפרש אצלו: “מבוא לר’ משה הרשלר לספר עליות רבינו יונה לב”ב או לתר”פ [אגב, פיענוח ראשי תיבות אלו אינן מופיעים אצלו, והכוונה כמובן: תוספות ר’ פרץ] ב”מ”. מדוע ציין באותו ציון לשני מבואות שונים, לא נתברר לי. גם לא נתבררו לי דבריו: “ח”פ – תשובות חכמי פרובינציה (מהד’ מהר”ק)”. לא ידוע לי כי ספר זה יצא ע”י מוסד הרב קוק.[3] בספר עצמו בעמ’ סח הערה 6 מופיע שלוש פעמים הקיצור: מ”ר. אין במפתח פירוש לראשי תיבות אלו, ואין לדעת כוונתו.[4] אולם יותר ממה שיש ברשימה זו, מתגלה מה שאין בה. הרי המחבר כתב כי ברשימה זו יש “פירוט מהדורות הספרים שצויינו מהם המקורות”. לאמור, אלו הם הספרים ששימשו למחבר כאבני בנין לספרו. יש לשבח את המחבר שהזכיר ברשימה זו את ספר בעלי התוספות לא”א אורבך, ספר שרבים מכותבי התולדות והמבואות למיניהם השתמשו בו, אבל לא הזכירוהו. אבל עם זאת מתברר שהמחבר אינו משתמש בספרות עזר נוספת. איני מתכוון למאמרים, שאכן יש צדק בדברי המחבר שיש טירחה בהשגתם, אלא אני מתכוון לספרים. כגון, אין ברשימה זו איזכור של הספר שרי האלף לרמ”מ כשר, מהד’ שנייה, ירושלים, תשל”ט. אין מן הצורך להסביר עד כמה חשיבותו של ספר זה רבה לעבודה מסוג זה, אבל המחבר אינו משתמש בו. על כך יש להוסיף כי המחבר אינו מודע כנראה לסדרת הספרים “קבץ על יד” היוצאת לאור ע”י חברת מקיצי נרדמים. חסרון זה הוא מהותי ביותר, שהרי כל ייעודם של ספרים אלו הוא פירסומם של חיבורים מכתבי יד. אין הדבר דומה כלל למאמרים שמתפרסמים בכתבי עת. בכל ספר של “קבץ על יד” מתפרסמים לראשונה חיבורים רבים מכתבי יד, וכיצד אפשר להתעלם מהם. ברור שספרים אלו מצויינים בשרי האלף, אבל מאז שפורסם שרי האלף עברו 30 שנים, ומאז נתפרסמו ב”קבץ על יד” חיבורים רבים. אין איזכור לשני ספריו של א’ גרוסמן: חכמי אשכנז הראשונים, חכמי צרפת הראשונים. אין איזכור לספריו של י’ תא שמע: הספרות הפרשנית לתלמוד באירופה ובצפון אפריקה. אין איזכור לספריו של י”ש שפיגל: עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי. אין איזכור לספרו של ש’ עמנואל: שברי לוחות. אלו הן דוגמות בלבד, והייתי יכול להוסיף לרשימה זו ספרים נוספים שהיה מן הראוי להשתמש בהם. נכון שהמחבר נזהר והודיע למעיין כי לא היה לו זמן לעבור על ספרים של חוקרים,[5] כפי שהעתקתי את דבריו לעיל, אבל דומה שעל מספר ספרים יסודיים בתחום זה (לא מאמרים מפוזרים) היה מן הראוי לעבור. החסרון של ספרות מחקר מלמדנו שעלינו לשבח את המחבר שהגיע לחומר רב ומגוון בכוחות עצמו. אבל מסתבר כי היה יכול להיעזר בעבודות קודמיו. יתר על כן, אילו היה נעזר בהן, הוא היה יכול להעשיר את ספרו, או למנוע שגיאות בספרו. אין כאן מקום להאריך, ועל כן אסתפק בדוגמות בודדות. אפתח בהראותי מה חסר בספרו הואיל ולא השתמש בשרי האלף. אתייחס רק לאמור בשרי האלף, מחלקה ששית, ספרי הפוסקים, [6]ואף כאן אני מסתפק במספר דוגמות כפי המזדמן. ואני מצמצם את עצמי עוד יותר, ומתייחס רק לחיבורים שיצאו כספר, ולא לחיבורים שנתפרסמו בסדרה “קבץ על יד”, ולא באלו שנתפרסמו בכתבי עת. א. על פי מפתח שמות החיבורים שבסוף הספר, אין נזכרים בספרו הספרים: הלכות קצובות, הלכות הנגיד מהד’ מרגליות,[7] אוצר חלוף מנהגים בין בני בבל לבני א”י, גנזי מצרים, [8]הלכות א”י מן הגניזה. יכול אדם לומר הרי ספרים אלו אין ידוע מי חיברם, ולכן לא הזכירם. אבל אנו מוצאים בספרו בעמ’ לח אות [א] שהוא כותב: “עוד גאונים וחיבוריהם, חיבורים מהגאונים: אוצרות הגאונים, בשר על גבי גחלים, גרש ירחים, הלכות ארץ ישראל, חמדה גנוזה, מתיבות, ניהוגים שבין בני ארץ לבין בני בבל, שימושא רבא, שערי תשובה, שערי צדק, ו’תשובות הגאונים'”. למדנו מכאן כי המחבר מנה גם חיבורים שנתחברו בתקופת הגאונים שמחברם אינו ידוע. וא”כ היה יכול להוסיף את הרשימה דלעיל. והואיל ורשימה זו שכתב המחבר באה לידינו, הבה נעיין בה. ספר אוצרות הגאונים, איני יודע טיבו, ולא מצאתיו בספריות. כנראה צ”ל: אוצר הגאונים, שהיא הסדרה שבה רוכזו תשובות הגאונים וגם פירושיהם, וגם פירוש ר’ חננאל, על פי סדר הש”ס, ע”י ב”מ לוין. בספר גרש ירחים, נראה שכוונתו לתשובות הגאונים מהד’ ג’ הרפנס, ירושלים, תשנ”ב-תשס”ד (5 כרכים). אבל אין כאן חיבור חדש. ג’ הרפנס סידר על פי סדר שקבע לעצמו, שבחלקו דומה קצת לשולחן ערוך, את תשובות הגאונים מתוך ספרי הגאונים והראשונים שנדפסו. ביחס לספר מתיבות כתב המחבר בהערה מספר מקורות שבהם הוזכר ספר זה, אבל לא ציין כי כל המקורות שבהם נזכר הספר בדברי הראשונים נאספו ויצאו לאור כספר ע”י ב”מ לוין, ירושלים, תרצ”ד. כן נהג גם ביחס לניהוגים שבין בני א”י לבין בני בבל. והנה מלבד שהשתמש בשם שאינו מקובל כל כך, ואני מסופק אם מישהו מכיר את החיבור בשם זה, הרי שלא ציין כי הספר נדפס, ויותר מפעם אחת. לא ברור מה רצה לומר ב’תשובות הגאונים’. בהערה שכתב שם נראה שיש טעות, הואיל ואין היא שייכת כלל לעניין. אולי רצה לפרט כאן את תשובות הגאונים שיצאו לאור בנוסף על אלו שהזכיר כאן, שהרי הוא הזכיר רק חלק קטן מהקבצים של תשובות הגאונים שיצאו לאור במשך הדורות, ואיני מפרטם כאן. אוסיף כאן כי בדורנו ראה אור הספר ‘תשובות הגאונים החדשות’ שההדיר ש’ עמנואל, מכון אופק, ירושלים, תשנ”ה. ודאי שיש להזכיר ספר זה, ואולי אף ספר זה היה אצלו תחת הכותרת ‘תשובות הגאונים’. ב. יש ספרים שהמחבר מציין את קיומם על פי מובאות בראשונים, אבל אינו מציין כי נדפסו. על פי שרי האלף (או קטלוגים של ספריות) היה יכול לומר למעיין כי ספר מסוים נדפס. לדוגמה: ברכות מהר”ם,[9] הלכות שחיטה למרדכי,[10] ועוד. ג. בעמ’ שיט הזכיר את החיבור הגהות מיימוניות על הרמב”ם. נראה שהיה מן הראוי לציין כי יש שתי מהדורות לחיבור זה. האחת, אלו הגהות מיימוניות דפוס קושטא, והשניה ההגהות שנדפסו בדפוס ויניציאה, וממנו בדפוסים הרגילים. עובדה זו צויינה בשרי האלף כמובן, עמ’ שעא, וגם ברמב”ם מהד’ פרנקל, ובמקורות נוספים. יש בידיעה זו חשיבות למעיינים, הואיל ומרן בבית יוסף השתמש בהגהות מיימוניות דפוס קושטא, ודברים מסויימים שהביא משם, אינם מצויים בהגהות שבדפוסים הרגילים. ד. בדומה לכך מצינו אצלו בעמ’ רפד ביחס לשבלי הלקט. המחבר לא כתב מאומה על הדפוסים של הספר. אבל על המעיין לדעת שהחיבור שבלי הלקט שנדפס לראשונה בויניציאה ש”ו, הוא למעשה קיצור, או מהדורה אחרת, של שבלי הלקט, [11]והוא שהיה לפני הפוסקים האחרונים. שבלי הלקט השלם נדפס ע”י בובר רק בשנת תרמ”ז. אבל מרן הבית יוסף ראה את שבלי הלקט השלם והביא ממנו. עובדה זו מיישבת שאלות ששאלו האחרונים על דברי הבית יוסף המביא משבלי הלקט והדבר לא נמצא לפניהם. עתה התשובה מובנת, לפניהם היה שבלי הלקט הקצר. אילו היה המחבר מעיין בשרי האלף עמ’ תב, היה רואה כי הספר נדפס לראשונה בקיצור, ומאוחר יותר נדפס בשלימות. אכן בשרי האלף לא נאמר כי מרן הב”י השתמש בבהגהות מיימוניות דפוס קושטא, וכן לא נאמר כי היה לפניו שבלי הלקט במהדורתו השלימה. אבל גם אם המחבר אינו מעיין בספרות המחקר כפי שכתב, הוא היה יכול לדעת את שני הפרטים האחרונים בשלימותם, ופרטים נוספים חשובים על ספרים ומחבריהם, אילו היה מעיין בספריו של רי”ח סופר, ראש ישיבת כף החיים. כמעט אין לך ספר שלו שאין בו דיון אגב אורחא, או במיוחד, בספרים ומחברים. יש בספריו מפתחות טובים ובנקל ניתן למצוא פרטים אלו. ואם לא די בכך, הרי שרי”ח סופר כינס חלק מדבריו על ספרים ומחברים, ועוד הוסיף עליהם, בשני ספרים מיוחדים, שהם: מנוחת שלום, חלק ו, וחלק ז, ירושלים, תשס”ב, שכותרת המשנה שלהם היא: על ספרים וסופרים.[12] נחזור אפוא לספרות המחקר. חשבתי שמן הראוי להראות מה היה המחבר יכול להפיק משאר הספרים שהזכרתי לעיל. אבל כיון שהדברים ארוכים, אקצר בדוגמאות, והמעיין ימצא עוד. ה. ערך רבינו מנחם המאירי, עמ’ שכ-שכב. לדברי המחבר נפטר בשנת ע”ה, ובהערה 6 כתב: “ועכ”פ לא לפני שנת ס”ו”. נמצא שהוא מסופק בשנת פטירתו, אבל תא שמע בספרו הנ”ל, ח”ב, עמ’ 159 מראה בבירור שהוא נפטר לאחר שנת ע”ד. בין ספריו של המאירי מנה המחבר את אהל מועד.[13] תא שמע לא מנה ספר זה. ואכן המאירי אינו מזכיר ספר זה בשום מקום. האיזכור היחיד הוא בשם הגדולים ערך ר’ מנחם ב”ר שלמה לבית מאיר, המפנה לשו”ת אבקת רוכל למרן סי’ רי. התשובה שם היא של ר”ש הלוי הזקן שכתב: “גם הרב המאירי כתב כן בפירוש בספר מגן אבות ובספר אהל מועד אשר לי”. בימינו שזכינו שכל ספרי המאירי הידועים לנו נדפסו, מן הדין היה שהמחבר יעיר לפחות שספר זה לא נודע עד היום. אולם דא עקא שהמחבר אינו מציין, לא כאן ולא במקומות אחרים,[14] אם ספר זה או אחר נדפס, והמעיין אינו יודע זאת. לכן, ניתן להסביר שר”ש הלוי התכוון לספר אהל מועד המובא בבית יוסף ומחברו ר”ש גירונדי.[15] ספר נוסף שכתב המחבר הוא בית יד. אכן המאירי חיבר קונטרס[16] הנקרא בית יד שהוא נספח לפירושו על ברכות, אבל אין זה ספר, ולכן הוא לא נמנה אצל תא שמע. אחרי ספר זה מנה המחבר את כתב הדת, ובהערה ציין שהוא ספר בענייני אמונה “רבינו מזכירו כמה פעמים בפי’ לאבות”. בעניי לא מצאתי זכרו במסכת אבות,אלא[17] רק בבית הבחירה על סנהדרין צ ע”א כתב המאירי: “ואמנם טרם שאתחיל בזה הסכמתי לכתוב תחלה הדברים התלמודיים שבפרק ואחרי כן אשוב עליו ואכתוב מה שנכלל בו מן האמונות ולגלגל עליו שלמות מה שצריך להאמין על פי הדרכים הדתיים כאשר ייעדתי בקונדרס מיוחד בפני עצמו קראתי שמו כתב הדת”.[18] אחרי זה כתב המחבר כי המאירי חיבר את קרית ספר. בהערה מוסיף: “על הל’ ס”ת. רבינו כותב (סנהדרין מח:) ‘הארכנו בה בחבור ספר תורה שחברנו בחסד עליון’, כנראה כוונתו לספר זה”. לא ברור מה מקום יש להסתפק בזה אחר שספר זה נדפס, וברור שכוונתו אליו.[19] אחר ספר זה מנה המחבר את חיבור התשובה ומשיבת נפש כשני ספרים, ובהערה כתב שאולי חד הם. גם כאן יש להתפלא על המחבר, שהרי ר”א סופר הדפיס את חבור התשובה, ומשם אנו למדים כי החיבור נחלק לשני חלקים. האחד: משיב (לא: משיבת) נפש. השני: שבר גאון (המחבר לא הזכירו). על חיבורים נוספים של המאירי ראה תא שמע הנ”ל בעמ’ 160, והמצויין כאן בהערה 18. אגב, חלק מהפרטים על המאירי היה יכול המחבר ללמוד גם מספר שרי האלף, אבל כפי שאמרנו אין הוא משתמש בספר זה. ו. עמ’ צז ערך ר’ יעקב ב”ר שמשון. א’ גרוסמן בספרו הנ”ל, חכמי צרפת הראשונים, עמ’ 226-211, דן בפירוט רב בחכם זה. ממנו למדנו כי הוא חיבר ספר הנקרא ספר האלקושי, שאין הוא נזכר על ידי המחבר. המחבר הזכיר את הפירוש של ר’ יעקב למסכת אבות, וכותב על כך בהערה: “כתב תמים”. מה יכול להבין הקורא מהערה זו? האם כוונתו כי זה שם החיבור? האם כוונתו כי הוא נדפס בתוך ספר שנקרא כתב תמים? ובכן, כוונתו כי הוא מוזכר בספר כתב תמים שכתב ר’ משה תקו. היכן מוזכר? מה כתוב שם? הקורא אינו יכול לדעת, כיון שהמחבר קיצר. אבל גרוסמן בעמ’ 413 מביא את הציטוט בשלימותו וגם מוסר לקורא האם הפירוש נדפס, ובאיזה אופן נדפס. המחבר כתב כי ר’ יעקב כתב פירוש על ספר יצירה. אבל גרוסמן בעמ’ 421 נוטה לדחות זאת, ולדעתו הדברים לקוחים מספר האלקושי. בעמ’ 425-424 מראה גרוסמן כי ר’ יעקב חיבר פיוטים וגם פירש פיוטים מסויימים. ברם המחבר מציין רק שר’ יעקב כתב הגהות לפיוט של ר’ שמשון ב”ר יונה לשבת הגדול. ז. בעמ’ רעג הזכיר המחבר את תוספות אלפסי כחיבורו של ר’ משה מלונדריש על יסוד איזכור בתרומת הדשן ובשו”ת מהרי”ק. על פי מפתח שמות החיבורים שבסוף הספר, זה המקום היחיד שבו מצאנו את החיבור תוספות אלפסי. [20]אבל המונח תוספות אלפסי מציין הגהות שכתבו חכמי אשכנז לדורותיהם על הרי”ף, ואינו מיוחד לחכם אחד בלבד. כתבו על כך מספר חכמים, וציינם ודן בהם י”ש שפיגל בספרו עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי – הגהות ומגיהים, מה’ שנייה, עמ’ 177-176. ח. ספרו של ש’ עמנואל שברי לוחות, שהוזכר לעיל, מיוחד כולו לרישום ודיון בחיבורים אבודים מתקופת בעלי התוספות. המחבר לא עיין בספר זה, ולפיכך נעלמו ממנו חיבורים אלו, ולא הזכירם. הרי מספר דוגמאות:[21] ארבעה פנים (עמנואל עמ’ 290), חנוכי (עמ’ 31), חתום (שם), ועוד.[22] כאמור, אני מסתפק בדוגמות אלו, ודומה שבזה הבהרתי די הצורך את החסרון שיש בכך שהמחבר אינו מודע לספרים אלו שציינתי ואחרים. לכן, איני עומד על נקודות אחרות שהיה אפשר לדון בהן בקשר לספר שלפנינו. עם זאת ברצוני להבהיר כי אין ההערות הללו גורעות מחשיבותו של הספר שלפנינו. אני סבור שיש לשבח מאוד את המחבר על העבודה העצומה שהשקיע. לא זו בלבד, אלא שהמעיין בספר רואה כי המחבר בדק פרטים רבים מבחינת סדר הזמנים והאישים, ולא אחת הוא מצביע על קשיים מסויימים ונשאר בצ”ע, או שהוא מנסה ליישבם. ברי כי גם במתכונתו הנוכחית, ספר זה הוא עזרה גדולה למעיינים. נאחל למחבר כי בס”ד יזכה להאיר את עיני ציבור הלומדים במהדורה נוספת של ספר זה, ואולי גם בספרים נוספים שיוקדשו לחכמים שפעלו בשאר התקופות. יחד עם זאת נבקש ממנו שבבואו לעשות זאת, יואיל נא לעיין גם בספרות נוספת, תורנית ומחקרית כאחד, כדי להוציא מתחת .ידו דבר מתוקן, לתועלת המעיינים

איני מציין לחכמים נוספים שכתבו בזה, והדברים [1] ברורים וידועים. [2] לכאורה היה עליו לציין למהד’ בלאו המאוחרת והמעודכנת יותר. [3] יש גם שגיאת דפוס בשמו של ר”א שושנה. בקיצור: ה”מ, נדפס: ר”י שושנה. אבל בקיצור: יד רמ”ה נדפס שמו כהלכה. [4] אולי: מדברי רבינו, וכוונתו להערות ר”ד לנדו, שבעמ’ טז כתב כי כתב הערות על הספר במהדורתו הראשונה. [5] אגב, איני יודע אם שרי האלף ייחשב אצל המחבר כספר מחקרי או תורני. [6] יש לשים לב כי המדובר כאן בספר שיצא לאור לפני 30 שנה, ומאז נוספו ספרים רבים. עידכון מסויים לכך פירסם ש’ עמנואל באינטרנט, ואיני מתייחס לכך. [7] אמנם אין זה ספר מקורי אלא אוסף המובאות של הנגיד, אבל מן הראוילהזכירו בעמ’ סה הערה 7 ביחס להלכתא גברוותא. [8] יצא בראשונה בתוך כתב עת, ואח”כ בצילום נפרד. אולי משום כך לא נמנה בספרו. [9] בעמ’ רעח הערה 14 הזכיר את סדר ברכות [אינו נזכר במפתח] ואת הלכות שמחות. את השני ציין שישנו בידינו כלומר שנדפס, וא”כ משמע שהראשון אינו נדפס, ונעלם ממנו האמור בשרי האלף עמ’ שסט מס’ 29. [10] ראה בספרו עמ’ שיז והערה 7, אבל לא ציין שנדפס. וראה עוד על חיבור זה, ש’ עמנואל, שברי לוחות, עמ’ .245-244 [11] על היחס בין שני החיבורים ראה בספרו של י”ש שפיגל, עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי, כתיבה והעתקה, תשס”ה, עמ’ 226-219, ובהערה 139 שם ציין לעוד חכמים שכתבו בנושא זה. [12] כבר ציין מ’ שפירו כאן כי אנשי אקדמיה כמעט ואינם מכירים את ספריו של רי”ח סופר, והנה אנו רואים שככל הנראה גם בציבור התורני אין ספריו מוכרים. [13] אגב, המחבר אינו מציין אם ספר זה או אחר נדפס, והמעיין אינו יכול לדעת זאת מעצמו. [14] לעתים מצא לנכון לציין. כך בעמ’ שטז הערה 43, על ספרי ר”י אבן נחמיאש הוא כותב: “ישנם בידינו”. [15] וכן כתב רי”ח סופר בקובץ מקבציאל, לד, תשס”ח, עמ’ תקכט. [16] כך הוא קורא לו בעצמו, וא”כ אין זה ספר. [17] ראה אבות מהד’ ש”ז הבלין, ירושלים, תשנ”ה, עמ’ יב, שמנה את חיבורי המאירי בענייני אמונה, ולא הזכיר חיבור זה. [18] חשבתי שהמחבר נמשך אחר מבואו של ר”מ הרשלר לקרית ספר, ח”א, ירושלים, תשט”ז, מבוא, סוף אות ג (דומה שהרשלר נמשך אחר אור המאיר לרש”ב סופר, ירושלים, תש”ב). הרשלר הוסיף כי הוא נזכר גם בפירושו לתנ”ך. ואכן נזכר בפירוש לתהלים סוף מזמור קב, וגם שם נאמר שהוא קונטרס. אבל אם כך היה לו להזכיר גם קונטרס על פסוקים וסליחות, ועוד חיבורים שהזכיר שם הרשלר. [19] ראה מבואו של הרשלר שם עמ’ אות ו (אין מספור של עמודים במבוא). [20] יש להוסיף כי גם הרשב”ם כתב תוספות על הרי”ף, והזכירם המחבר בעמ’ קח ובהערה 17, אבל לא הזכיר זאת במפתח החיבורים. אציין כאן כי דברי הרשב”ם על הרי”ף נמצאים בחלקם גם בדפוסי הרי”ף שלפנינו, והמחבר לא ציין זאת. ראה על כך בספרו הנ”ל של שפיגל, עמ’ 175-174. שפיגל סבור שהרשב”ם כתב את הגהותיו בגליון, ולא כספר עצמאי. אפשר שגם המחבר סבור כך, ולכן לא מנה חיבור זה במפתח שמות החיבורים. [21] אציין כאן כי עמנואל בעמ’ 240 הזכיר את איסור והיתר לרא”ש הנזכר פעם אחת בלבד בשו”ת רדב”ז ח”ג, סי’ תתקח (תסט). גם המחבר הזכיר, בעמ’ שיד, בתוך חיבורי הרא”ש את הל’ איסור והיתר. אבל בעוד שלשאר החיבורים הוא ציין מראה מקום, לחיבור זה הוא לא ציין מקור. אכן אוסיף כאן כי ידיעה זו והפנייה לשו”ת רדב”ז, כבר כתב החיד”א בשם הגדולים ערך רא”ש. [22] עמנואל בעמ’ 240 מזכיר את הספר הנקרא שערי הפנים. אכן, גם המחבר הזכיר ספר זה במפתח שמות החיבורים. אלא שיש במפתח שני שיבושים. האחד, הוא נקרא: שער [צ”ל: שערי] הפנים. השני, נאמר כי הוא נזכר בעמ’ סח בהערה, ונשמט בדפוס מספר ההערה .שהיא 32