Benefits of the Internet: Besamim Rosh and its History Benefits of the Internet: Besamim Rosh and its History By: Dan Rabinowitz & Eliezer Brodt In a new series we wanted to highlight how much important material is now available online. This, first post, illustrates the proliferation of online materials with regard to the controversy surrounding the work Besamim Rosh (“BR”). [We must note at the outset that recently a program has been designed by Moshe Koppel which enables one, via various mathematical algorithims, to identify documents authored by the same author. We hope, using this program, to provide a future update that will show what this program can demonstrate regarding the authorship of the BR and if indeed the Rosh authored these responsa.] Background Before turning to the BR and discussing its history we need to first discuss another work. R. Raphael Cohen the chief rabbi of triple community, Altona-Hamburg-Wansbeck (“AH”W”), [1] published a book, Torat Yekuseil, Amsterdam, 1772 regarding the laws of Yoreh Deah. Torat Yekuseil is a standard commentary and is unremarkable when compared to other works of this genre. While the book is unremarkable in and of itself, what followed is rather remarkable. Some years later, in 1789, a work with the putative author listed listed as Ovadiah bar Barukh and titled Mitzpeh Yokteil [2] was published to counter R. Raphael Cohen’s Torat Yekuseil (“TY”). Mitzpeh Yokteil (“MY”), was a vicious attack both against the work TY as well as its author, R. Raphael Cohen. R. Raphael Cohen was a well-known and well-respected Rabbi. In fact, he was the Chief Rabbi of the triple community of AH”W. The attack against him and his work did not go unanswered. Indeed, the beit din of Altona-Wansbeck placed the putative author, Ovadiah, and his work, under a ban. The Altona-Wansbeck beit din could not limit the ban to just Altona-Wansbeck as the attack in the MY was intended to embarrass R. Raphael Cohen across Europe. Indeed, the end of the introduction to MY indicates that copies were sent to a list of thirteen prominent rabbis across Europe. Specifically, copies were sent to the Chief Rabbis of Prague, Amsterdam, Frankfort A.M., Hanover, Bresslau, Gloga, Lissa, etc., “as well as The Universally Know Goan haHassid R. Eliyahu from Vilna.” Thus, the intent of the book was to diminish R. Raphael Cohen’s standing amongst his peers. The Altona-Wansbeck beit din, recognizing the intent of the book, appealed to other cities courts to similarly ban the author and book MY – the ban, entitled,Pesak mi-Beit Din Tzedek, the only known extant copy was recently sold at Sotheby’s (Important Judaica, Nov. 24, 2009, lot 136).[3] These concerns lead the ban’s proponents to the Chief Rabbi of Berlin, R. Tzvi Hirsch Berlin, and to solicit him to join the ban. Initially, it appeared that R. Tzvi Hirsch would go along with the ban. But, as he was nearing deciding in favor of signing the ban, someone whispered in his ear the verse in which R. Tzvi Hirsch – אהה אדני והוא שאול ,Kings 2, 6:5 in the context of ”שאול“ understood to be a play on the word the verse meaning borrow, but, in this case, to be a reference to his son, Saul. That is, the real author of MY was Saul Berlin, Tzvi Hirsch’s son. Needless to say, R. Tzvi Hirsch did not sign the ban. [4] Not only did he not sign the ban, he also came to his son’s defense. Aside from the various bans that were issued, a small pamphlet of ten pages, lacking a title page, was printed against MY and Saul. [5] Saul decided that he must respond to these attacks. He published Teshuvot ha-Rav. Saul le-haRav [] Moshe Yetz,[6] which also includes a responsum from R. Tzvi Hirsch, Saul’s father. Saul defends himself arguing that rabbinic disagreement, in very strong terms, has a long history. Thus, a ban is wholly inappropriate in the present case. R. Tzvi Hirsch explained that while MY disagreed with R. Cohen, there is nothing wrong with doing so. The author of MY, as a rabbi – Saul was, at the time, Chief Rabbi of Frankfort – Saul is entitled to disagree with other rabbis. Of course, Saul’s name is never explicitly mentioned. Moreover, in the course of R. Tzvi Hirsch’s defense he solicits the opinions of other rabbis, including R. Ezekiel Landau. R. Landau, as well as others, noted that aside from the propriety of disagreement within Judaism, the power of any one particular beit din is limited by geography. Thus, the Altona-Wansbeck’s beit din‘s power is limited to placing residents of Hamburg under a ban but not residents of Berlin, including R. Saul Berlin, the author of MY.[7] The controversy surrounding the MY was not limited to Jewish audiences. The theater critic, H.W. Seyfried, published in his German newspaper, Chronik von Berlin, translations of the relevant documents and provided updates on the controversy. Seyfried agitated on behalf of the maskilim and editorlized that the Danish government should take actions against R. Cohen. It appears, however, that Seyfried’s pleas were not acted upon.[8] The Publication of Besamim Rosh With this background in mind, we can now turn to the Besamim Rosh. Prior to publishing the full BR, in 1792, Saul Berlin published examples of the responsa and commentary found in the BR – a prospectus, Arugat ha-Bosem. This small work whose purpose was to solicit subscribers for the ultimate publication of BR. It appears that while Saul may have been trying for significant rabbinic support, the majority of his sponsors were householders. In 1793, the BR was published. The BR contains 392 responsa (besamim equals 392) from either R. Asher b. Yeheil (Rosh) (1259-1327) or his contemporaries. This manuscript belonged to R. Yitzhak di Molina who lived during the same time period as R. Yosef Karo, the author of Shulchan Orakh. Additionally, Saul appended a commentary of his own to these responsa, Kasa de-Harshana. The BR contains two approbations, one from R. Tzvi Hirsch Berlin and the other from R. Yehezkel Landau. R. Landau’s approbation first explains that Rosh’s responsa need no approbation. With regard to R. Saul Berlin’s commentary, he too doesn’t need an approbation according to R. Landau. This is so because R. Saul’s reputation is well-known. R. Landau’s rationale, R. Saul’s fame, appears a bit odd in light of the fact that among some (many?) R. Saul’s reputation was very poor due to the MY. R. Tzvi Hirsch’s approbation also contains an interesting assertion. Saul’s father explains that this book should put to rest any lingering question regarding his son. In addition to the approbations there are two introductions, one from di Molina and the other from Saul. Di Molina explained the tortured journey of the manuscript. He explains that, while in Alexandria, he saw a pile of manuscripts that contained many responsa from Rosh that had never before been published. He culled the unpublished ones and copied and collected them in this collection. What is worthy of noting is that throughout the introduction di Molina repeatedly asks “how does the reader know these responsa are genuinely from Rosh.” R. Saul, in his introduction, first notes that the concept of including introductions is an invention long after Rosh, and is not found amongst any of the Rishonim. As mentioned previously, the BR is a collection of 392 responsa mostly from Rosh or his contemporaries. Additionally, R. Saul wrote his own commentary on these responsa, Kasa diHarshena. [9] This commentary would contain the first problem for Saul and the BR. In responsum 40, Rosh discusses the position of Rabbenu Tam with regard to shaving during the intermediate days (ho ha-moad). While Rosh ultimately concludes that one is prohibited from shaving on hol ha-moad, R. Saul, in his commentary, however, concludes that shaving on hol ha-moad is permissible. In so holding, R. Saul recognized that this position disagreed with that of his father. Almost immediately after publication, R. Saul printed a retraction regarding this position allowing for shaving on hol ha-mo’ad. This retraction, Mo’dah Rabba, explains that Saul failed to apprise his father of this position and, as Saul’s father still stands behind his negative position, Saul therefore retracts his lenient position. [Historically, this is not the only time a father and son disagreed about shaving on hol ha-moad. R. Yitzhak Shmuel Reggio (YaSHaR)and his father, Abraham, disagreed on the topic as well. As was the case with Saul and his father, the son, YaSHaR took the lenient position and his father the stringent. Not only did they disagree, after YaSHaR published his book explaining his theory, his father attacked him in an anonymous response. For more on this controversy see Meir Benayahu, Shaving on the Intermediary Days of the Festival, Jerusalem, 1995.] This retraction, while may be interperated as evidence of Saul humbleness in his willingness to admit error and not stand on ceremony, others used this retraction against him. The first work published that questioned the legitimacy of BR is Ze’ev Yetrof, Frankfort d’Oder, 1793, by R. Ze’ev Wolf son of Shlomo Zalman. (This book is very rare and, to my knowledge, is not online. Although not online, a copy is available in microfiche as part of the collection of books from the JTS Library, and on Otzar Hachomah see below) The author explains that eight responsa in BR are problematic because they reach conclusion that appear to run counter to accepted halahik norms.